View Full Version : Iowa Caucuses '08
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 06:23
Who do you like personally so far. It doesn't matter where you are from, just vote. No Gah.
Who do you like personally so far. It doesn't matter where you are from, just vote.
https://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8601/paulheartdeesra6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 06:44
I love Paul too, tough choice. I went with a candidate who doesn't sound like an old prospector, lost in a gold mine for weeks.
That's a great and accurate picture.
IrishArmenian
12-03-2007, 07:30
Woohoo! First non-American to vote! Everyone's going to eye Edwards with suspicion now. Its a conspiracy!
Seriously, I think he could really improve the living quality of American citizens. At that point, you guys can focus on everyone else--but this time 'good intentions' won't save your president.
Doesn't Paul want to abolish the tax-collecting agency (name eludes me). How does the government get taxes, then?
Woohoo! First non-American to vote! Everyone's going to eye Edwards with suspicion now. Its a conspiracy!
Seriously, I think he could really improve the living quality of American citizens. At that point, you guys can focus on everyone else--but this time 'good intentions' won't save your president.
Doesn't Paul want to abolish the tax-collecting agency (name eludes me). How does the government get taxes, then?
It's the IRS.
He can't do that as President. He doesn't have the legislative power.
What he can do, is bring balance to the government.
IrishArmenian
12-03-2007, 07:47
Oh, okay. That's good. Still if I hadn't voted for Edwards, I would've voted for Kucinich. *Dodges heads of lettuce and tomatoes* *Dodges watermelons* *Dodges a cell phone* *Gets hit in the head with a shoe* *Dodges a PC*
IrishArmenian
12-03-2007, 07:52
Watch out for flying objects, Ichigo. *Dives away from fast moving, incoming car*
No idea what his policies are, but I remember something about him having a hot wife. ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
12-03-2007, 08:36
:pulling hair out smilie: @ Ichigo
I support Fred's ideas, but his campaign lacks drive. Paul is off on foreign policy and some economic policies. Romney is experienced, but seems like the say-anything guy. Guliani I don't trust with that power.
CR
I support Fred's ideas, but his campaign lacks drive. No reason not to support him, I say. He hasn't exactly been inspirational, but I agree with more of his positions that any other candidate- so he's still my guy.
Paul is off on foreign policy and some most economic policies. Romney is experienced, but seems like the say-anything guy. Guliani I don't trust with that power.Now I agree. :beam:
The only thing I like about Paul is that he's a non-establishment candidate. We need more like that in politics. That aside, I have no doubt that he'd be a complete disaster as president.
HoreTore
12-03-2007, 13:03
No lefties on the list, so I couldn't care less about what happens in your backwards little capitalist reich...
I see no need to choose the lesser of two evils, and as I'm thankfully not an american, I won't have to! :smash:
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2007, 13:08
Clinton (D) or Giuliani (R). https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif
woad&fangs
12-03-2007, 13:59
Obama, and McCain is my second choice. Edwards, Paul, and Giuliani I could live with.
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 14:09
I love Romney. Every time I listen to his speeches in Iowa, I feel like he is just an older version of me (with less of an intemperate or reactionary side...)
Politics is for politicians. I like that he knows how to speak to his constituents. PLUS, any Republican who can win the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts is a bridge building juggernaut.
I have been in his corner since the begging of his campaign.
I would've said Clinton but she has the european "video games are to blame for all evil" - syndrome which I do not want to support, it's enough that german games are often censored.
Since I don't know a lot about the policies of the others except that Ron Paul wants the Gold Standard back, I'd have to say Mike Huckabee since he's Chuck Norris approved. :2thumbsup:
Maybe I should do some research. :sweatdrop:
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 17:58
http://www.c-span.org/rss/video.asp?MediaID=33618
here you go, I watched this last night with my girlfriend who at first hated him. Now she wants to vote for him. I think he is a great "off the top of his head" candidate.
I am now in favor of Gay marriage. There is no other way for me to marry Mitt.
Vladimir
12-03-2007, 18:05
I voted Ron Paul, because he always wins internet polls anyway. :shrug:
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 18:11
I voted Ron Paul, because he always wins internet polls anyway. :shrug:
That's true. People love the dude. Too bad he doesn't look like Bush. He would have a pretty successful campaign as a cuddly stuffed animal.
Kralizec
12-03-2007, 18:19
Giuliani, followed by McCain. At face value Clinton I guess I could live with most of Clinton's policies, but I'm deeply suspicious of her. The rest of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Richardson, are just to leftist for my taste. The rest of the Republicans all seem to conservative for me (with the exception of Ron Paul, who's a looney)
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2007, 18:56
Clinton (D) or Giuliani (R). https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif
You would condemn us to an executive run by a New Yorker Louis?
Mon couer est creve. :shame:
:devilish:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2007, 19:13
Paul has one ringing strength -- his desire to return to a federal government that is more strictly Constitutional.
This is NOT to assert that our present government is not, only that it now functions along the following lines: If it isn't prohibited by the Constitution then it must be okay for the Federal Government to do.
Paul, correctly, is asserting that the metric should be: If it isn't specificially ascribed TO the federal government, then it should be the province of the several states to decide upon OR the Constitution should be properly ammended to allow for federal control of X, Y, or Z.
However, his quasi-isolationist foreign policy schema is impractical for a nation with global business interests and given the last half-century of involvement we have had. Some re-orientation adopting some of his themes may well be profitable as a new course, but the entirety is too limiting.
Economically, he has some good themes (taxation) and some less practical ones (re-adopting a metals standard). I'd even accept that the latter might also have some long-term value, but I do not believe the World-wide depression it would engender for the next 5-15 years would help us with our neighbors -- to say the least.
I am also leery of many of the Paulists out there. They may be internet savvy and interested in real change, but too many of them are whack-job conspiracy monkies and a couple are out-and-out loons. Too much of Paul's support is about "Iraq is wrong" and "I wanna get baked legally" and not enough is about the correct and Constitutional interplay of rights and responsibilities.
Pity, too -- his calling card is a nice theme.
As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.
http://www.c-span.org/rss/video.asp?MediaID=33618
here you go, I watched this last night with my girlfriend who at first hated him. Now she wants to vote for him. I think he is a great "off the top of his head" candidate.
Thanks for the link, the guy is great. :2thumbsup:
I was a bit suspicious at first from the way that other guy introduced him, but his speech and the way he answered the questions were very convincing IMO. There were some key things he said to get my sympathy and I couldn't see much wrong about the policies he advertised. Maybe he's a bit too self-confident about doing all this, but one cannot expect more than that he tries his best(goes for all candidates of course). Between that bunch of politicians and looneys I found his speech really refreshing and he made an honest impression on me. Doesn't mean he couldn't have fooled me but I'd certainly give him my vote and thus a chance. :2thumbsup:
I am also leery of many of the Paulists out there. They may be internet savvy and interested in real change, but too many of them are whack-job conspiracy monkies and a couple are out-and-out loons. Too much of Paul's support is about "Iraq is wrong" and "I wanna get baked legally" and not enough is about the correct and Constitutional interplay of rights and responsibilities.Nicely put.
As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.I almost want to say that maybe it's a good thing that Thompson isn't out trying to set the world on fire. I think we could use a more understated president with solid conservative credentials- would it be so bad if we had a president who said he was going to do less than the others? Unfortunately, politics is all about what you are going to give to the voters, so that kind of platform wouldn't likely have much success. :shrug:
edit:
Politics is for politicians. I like that he knows how to speak to his constituents. PLUS, any Republican who can win the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts is a bridge building juggernaut.You know, this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkWXFh4t4QujzGQ07m52hwpA-OpgD8T8UMQ80) did more to make me think favorably about Romney than most anything else I've heard. The article is, imo, completely insulting to primary voters(we're apparently too stupid to be interested in serious policy discussion), but it does a good job of showing how well-informed and quick-thinking Romney is. However, I still get too much of the "I'm just saying what I need to say." vibe from Romney.
Clinton (D) or Giuliani (R). https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif
My personal nightmare. Nixon in a pantsuit versus a small man in search of a balcony. Yikes. I'd take almost anyone on the list over those two.
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 20:31
edit:You know, this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkWXFh4t4QujzGQ07m52hwpA-OpgD8T8UMQ80) did more to make me think favorably about Romney than most anything else I've heard. The article is, imo, completely insulting to primary voters(we're apparently too stupid to be interested in serious policy discussion), but it does a good job of showing how well-informed and quick-thinking Romney is. However, I still get too much of the "I'm just saying what I need to say." vibe from Romney.
I see the technical side to Romney. He does like the details, but he is by no means bookish. Charisma like crazy.
I think that people, particularly the voting public, are smart enough to try grasping concepts in policy. We don't need allegory all the time like school children - some fairytale example. We want raw data and transparency so that we can become more informed.
Romney seems to know the balance. He doesn't seem robotic to me. As much as I like the personality of GWB, I wish that he was a bit more high brow in his speeches, regardless of whether the playing dumb is an act.
Romney is balanced, bright and charismatic. I believe him to a well intentioned person and a consummate politician, not always mutually exclusive. I've been listening to him directly, rather than only through the media lens to hear what he's saying and how he's saying it. I like what I hear so far.
I hope that I get the chance to vote for him - I'm not a registered Republican, so I can't vote in the primaries.
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 20:32
My personal nightmare. Nixon in a pantsuit versus a small man in search of a balcony. Yikes. I'd take almost anyone on the list over those two.
me too. I stay up at night because of it.
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2007, 21:34
You would condemn us to an executive run by a New Yorker Louis? :yes:
Mon cœur est crevé d'obsession...il bat en répétant, tout au fond de moi-meme, ce mot que j'aime, ton nom...Hillary...Hillary.
[/Piaf]
My personal nightmare. Nixon in a pantsuit versus a small man in search of a balcony.
me too. I stay up at night because of it.Better get used to it! https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1053/cul2wv1.gif
A little fairy whispered in my ear that Clinton vs. Giuliani will be your choice indeed. Ah, never a night of restless sleep again 'till 2012.
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Divers/lit-journal-18392.gif
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 21:47
:yes:
Mon cœur est crevé d'obsession...il bat en répétant, tout au fond de moi-meme, ce mot que j'aime, ton nom...Hillary...Hillary.
[/Piaf]
Better get used to it! https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1053/cul2wv1.gif
A little fairy whispered in my ear that Clinton vs. Giuliani will be your choice indeed. Ah, never a night of restless sleep again 'till 2012.
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Divers/lit-journal-18392.gif
Republicans will lose this election if they field Giuliani. I fear that they will lose regardless of who they put up there, though.
Huckabee will fall apart against Clinton. He's already getting so much abuse for his policies as governor. I like his personality and social policies, but I have a feeling that the Iowa vote will be a fluke in his campaign, especially when they start getting down to brass tacks. I need to learn more about his record, I considered his candidacy a joke until a month ago.
Edwards is a fake joke. I don't trust Thompson at all. He seems like a southern mafioso type. Plus, he looks like a frog
I would love to see Obama v Romney. I would be pissed to see Obama win, but he is a bright guy too -but one who I disagree almost entirely with.
I would love to see Obama v Romney.
I could live with that. In fact, that campaign would make me downright mellow.
GeneralHankerchief
12-03-2007, 22:40
I picked Tancredo so that he could fulfill the Mayan prophecy regarding 2012. :hide:
Seriously though, none of them look too appealing. What a shame.
seireikhaan
12-03-2007, 23:20
I picked Tancredo so that he could fulfill the Mayan prophecy regarding 2012. :hide:
Seriously though, none of them look too appealing. What a shame.
Ah, ok. I was really, really hoping that wasn't a serious vote.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2007, 23:20
I'd like to see Obama vs Huckabee, because it would be the least muddy election in history. And Obama would win easily.
Giuliani is a corrupt lying scumbag. Romney is merely a lying scumbag.
Here's some hillary quotes for you louis:
On asked whether homosexuality was immoral: "that's up to the voters to decide".
When obama said she was overplaying here experience level, she replied: "This is not a time for republican scare tactics. It's also not a time for TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASES"
seireikhaan
12-03-2007, 23:26
Ehh. I voted Obama here. Mostly because he offends me the least of the candidates. Hilary I despise, Edwards is mostly a joke(as a politician) to me. Kusinich didn't exactly work miracles in Ohio, to say the least. And frankly, I'm not really that conservative. Romney, however, gets a special place in my heart. Right above Tancredo for "most hated person". And just below GWB. I like some of Paul's policies, but frankly, a lot of his followers just scare me. A lot of them that I've met are out and out bigots.
Yeah, what with the latest polls showing Obama doing marginally better than Hil, her mask is slipping (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120202194.html?referrer=digg).
But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.
"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."
Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
I can't even puzzle out what she means by that, except that it sounds kinda, I don't know, fightey.
PanzerJaeger
12-04-2007, 00:55
Guiliani. I believe we need a strong administrator with experience running a large government over a social conservative.
I'm more interested in his track record - which appears to be a strong turn-around in NYC - than his personal love life or his opinions on abortion, which he would have little leverage over in office anyway.
AntiochusIII
12-04-2007, 01:13
Obama just because I'm in the cool crowd, but not cool enough to vote Ron Paul. That and to piss the racists off, on both sides of the, err, spectrum.
Did I mention I will not be able to vote this 2008? I'll have the high horse all to myself the next five years or so as whatever idiot in the White House screwed America over, again. :2thumbsup:
Imagine! An "I told you so (why did you idiots vote for that scum anyway?)" that can be justified without looking like an arse!
AggonyDuck
12-04-2007, 01:27
I somehow personally prefer Huckabee, even if I do not agree to all of his policies. He just seems to be a man of integrity, which is definately a rare thing among politicians and he has managed to sway me over atleast.
Louis VI the Fat
12-04-2007, 01:34
Here's some hillary quotes for you louis:
On asked whether homosexuality was immoral: "that's up to the voters to decide".
I agree with that. Morality is none of the governments business. Governments should be a-moral and simply ensure the right of each to live according to their own morality. (Yes, yes, I know that she is simply copping out)
When obama said she was overplaying here experience level, she replied: "This is not a time for republican scare tactics. It's also not a time for TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASES"
(Lemur) Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
That's my girl! Take 'em gloves off when needed!
:2thumbsup:
I'm more interested in his track record - which appears to be a strong turn-around in NYC - than his personal love life or his opinions on abortion, which he would have little leverage over in office anyway.I agree! If it must be a Republican, then Giuliani. He's got a good track record, is on the whole pretty moderate, and has the social, liberal outlook and walk of life of an open-mided city dweller.
And he was impressive during 9/11. That is important, regardless of what people say. A president needs confidence, composure and leadership too.
Compare Giuliani with that eternally stupid image of Bush on 9/11 in that school, children book in hand, looking around dazed and confused. One is a president, the other a bumbling fool.
I don't mean that in a partisan, anti-Bush way. This simply wouldn't have happend to Bill Clinton, and nor would it have happened to Ronald Reagan. (When Reagan was shot in '83(?), while he was dragged off, he said to a microphone: 'I bet that guy doesn't vote Republican...'. Classic. He couldn't possibly have gotten it from a speech writer)
Crazed Rabbit
12-04-2007, 02:02
I somehow personally prefer Huckabee, even if I do not agree to all of his policies. He just seems to be a man of integrity, which is definately a rare thing among politicians and he has managed to sway me over atleast.
Huckabee is probably the most 'ethically challenged' (corrupt) guy on the list, maybe even beating Guliani.
It's almost a pity the dems are ignoring Bill Richardson; the most experienced and perhaps one of the most moderate democrat candidates.
Obama is going to have real issues with experience issues going up against basically any Republican frontrunner.
Hillary is so very polarizing, not to mention 'Nixon in a pantsuit' as Lemur so aptly put it. Geez, the thought of the corrupt, greedy, power loving Clintons back in the white house? Why do you wish that horror upon us, Louis?
CR
seireikhaan
12-04-2007, 02:06
It's almost a pity the dems are ignoring Bill Richardson; the most experienced and perhaps one of the most moderate democrat candidates.
Heh, so me and CR DO agree on something. Too bad he's got ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning. I'd love to see him as VP to Obama though.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2007, 03:06
Here's some hillary quotes for you louis:
On asked whether homosexuality was immoral: "that's up to the voters to decide".
I agree with that. Morality is none of the governments business. Governments should be a-moral and simply ensure the right of each to live according to their own morality. (Yes, yes, I know that she is simply copping out)
When obama said she was overplaying here experience level, she replied: "This is not a time for republican scare tactics. It's also not a time for TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASES"
(Lemur) Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
That's my girl! Take 'em gloves off when needed!
You'll be sorry to hear she later came out and said that homosexuality was not immoral.
The point of the second quote is that she is casting legitimate criticism as a scare tactic, and then using a scare tactic herself...
Guiliani. I believe we need a strong administrator with experience running a large government over a social conservative.
I'm more interested in his track record - which appears to be a strong turn-around in NYC - than his personal love life or his opinions on abortion, which he would have little leverage over in office anyway.
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3546/giulianicrimeratemm0.png
Marshal Murat
12-04-2007, 03:34
I like Obama for Dem.
Huckabee for Republican.
Ron Paul is a little, off?
Also, a previous poster asked about the new taxes and all.
Fair Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax)
Essentially most taxes are dropped in favor of a % increase in the sales tax (7 percent from what I read). This should balance out the price, and remove the IRS.
I like Huckabee, he isn't as slimy as Romney or Giuliani. Not as hard-core as McCain. Not as unknown as Tancredo or Hunter, and not as crazy as Ron Paul.
ICantSpellDawg
12-04-2007, 05:28
I'm worried that people are liking the Huckabee persona too much. His "genuiness" seems contrived. Not in the slimy way that Edwards does it, but in an amazingly sly way.
He seems straight forward, but I have a bad feeling. I like his social policies alot, but still...
This sort of thing (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/national-suppor.html) makes me happy.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2007, 07:34
Yeah. The only reason they were polling so high is name recognition. Most people in the country haven't taken a real close look at the candidates yet.
If Paul doesn't get the nomination (which I doubt he will) I'm hoping Fred does.
If neither one of those two get it, I'm either voting democrat or independent.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-04-2007, 17:11
I disagree with labeling Hil' as "Nixon in a pantsuit."
Catchy phrasing though....:laugh4:
However morally moribund in his political electioneering and "punishing" of the opposition -- and he was -- Nixon brought a LOT to the table in terms of political savvy, experience in foreign policy, and the "rep" to sit down with the CCCP and PRC without signalling weakness.
Hil' and the Clinton team have the political savvy -- anyone who doubts that is foolish -- but I don't think that either she or the ex-pres has the kind of gravitas Nixon brought to the game. Of course, Hilary isn't loathed by the media the way Nixon was either, which is of some value in modern politics to say the least.
The comparison does work on the love of power/politics as crushing the opposition level -- both do share that characteristic. I wonder how the Hilary of 1972 would feel about the Hilary of 2007? Life is full of such rich irony....
I disagree with labeling Hil' as "Nixon in a pantsuit."
Catchy phrasing though....:laugh4:
However morally moribund in his political electioneering and "punishing" of the opposition -- and he was -- Nixon brought a LOT to the table in terms of political savvy, experience in foreign policy, and the "rep" to sit down with the CCCP and PRC without signalling weakness.
Hil' and the Clinton team have the political savvy -- anyone who doubts that is foolish -- but I don't think that either she or the ex-pres has the kind of gravitas Nixon brought to the game. Of course, Hilary isn't loathed by the media the way Nixon was either, which is of some value in modern politics to say the least.
The comparison does work on the love of power/politics as crushing the opposition level -- both do share that characteristic. I wonder how the Hilary of 1972 would feel about the Hilary of 2007? Life is full of such rich irony....
Well Seamus Ms Clinton dosent have a 3rd party candidate thats going to get 13% of the vote (George Wallace) or the elephant in the room being assisinated (Mr Kennedy).
Nixon shouldnt have won in 68 he narrowly won. Hillary should she get the nomination wont have near the same conditions. Sure nixon had plenty of expirence but I would argue his victory in 68 was a circumstance of the political climate not because of his expirence. Hilary is the later circumstance IMHO.
Now to you republicans. Before you sits an independent who has voted mostly republican in the past (exceptions 96,04) sell me a president will you ?
Right now I'm partial to Ron Paul (my wife is sold on him, he says a lot of things I want to hear but I know he cant get them done). Also on the flip side watching the Dems Biden is the only one I really believe. Why cant he get any traction?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-04-2007, 17:38
Well Seamus Ms Clinton dosent have a 3rd party candidate thats going to get 13% of the vote (George Wallace) or the elephant in the room being assisinated (Mr Kennedy).
Nixon shouldnt have won in 68 he narrowly won. Hillary should she get the nomination wont have near the same conditions. Sure nixon had plenty of expirence but I would argue his victory in 68 was a circumstance of the political climate not because of his expirence. Hilary is the later circumstance IMHO.
Like a general on campaign, the art of politics is exceedingly situational -- and therefore not a science.
Yes, Nixon benefited from the vote for Wallace. However, Nixon is the fellow who "invented" the "Southern Strategy" that helped create the conditions for Wallace's third party bid. Nixon played up Johnson's record with civil rights and other issues relevant to the socially conservative South (and I say played because on econ/social issues Nixon was somewhat of a liberal in the classic "country club" GOP style) so as to wedge the conservative "Dixiecrats" away from supporting the Dems. That they went as much or more to Wallace as to Nixon didn't bother him -- as long as they were off Humpfrey's roster of supporters.
It may well have been different with RFK as the Dem nominee -- the grief over John Kennedy was still palpable -- but then again it may not have. Nixon's strategy was well crafted for the times and would have hurt the chances of any relatively liberal Dem trying to take the presidency.
Winning a close vote by playing off your opponents against one another is classic politics and not a sign of political inability. Bill Clinton accomplished it twice with resounding effect and to his great political credit. Even Rove/Bush win some points on this scale for "stealing" FL in 2k. They certainly rubbed their hands with glee -- and took prompt advantage -- wherever Nader was siphoning off liberal votes in a close state.
Paul gets my vote. He's a nut, but he's honest, he's not power-hungry, and stands for the Constitution. The state's rights Southerner in me loves that. If he didn't try to do anything too crazy too soon, I think he would be able to get Congress working again, he wouldn't be as polarizing as some of the other candidates. Of course, he has no chance. :rolleyes:
Giuliani would be a disaster, which is a shame because I actually don't mind his social agenda. I just foresee corruption and cronyism in droves, along with more power centralized in the executive.
McCain, I could stomach. Thompson wouldn't be too bad either, but he's a little more socially conservative than I would like. Either of these might be able to work with Congress. Romney just seems to eager to tell people what they want to hear, either he's just unaware of Google or he will be too easily swayed by polls when in office.
Hillary, :fainting: . She's smart, very politically savvy, but still too power-hungry. She could probably do well in foreign affairs, especially with Bill schmoozing for her. But the GOP looks to lose even more seats in Congress in the next election, and I don't want her with Democratic backing from the Capitol (this pretty much goes for all the Dem candidates ~D ). Enhanced presidential power aimed at the vast right wing conspiracy. While it would be funny to see the GOP reap what they have sown, it would be take decades to recover from the damage.
Obama, not enough experience. Seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't really agree with his policies and see above about Congress.
Louis VI the Fat
12-04-2007, 18:25
discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now? :inquisitive:
You'll be sorry to hear she later came out and said that homosexuality was not immoral.
The point of the second quote is that she is casting legitimate criticism as a scare tactic, and then using a scare tactic herself...
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3546/giulianicrimeratemm0.pngI shall blissfully ignore those Hillary quotes that went over my head and move directly on to Giuliani...
That is a shocking graph. Giuliani is presented here as the zero-tolerance hero. A policy that got impressive results in NY. It is often quoted as a great example. I must read up about it a bit more. :inquisitive:
Like a general on campaign, the art of politics is exceedingly situational -- and therefore not a science.
Yes, Nixon benefited from the vote for Wallace. However, Nixon is the fellow who "invented" the "Southern Strategy" that helped create the conditions for Wallace's third party bid. Nixon played up Johnson's record with civil rights and other issues relevant to the socially conservative South (and I say played because on econ/social issues Nixon was somewhat of a liberal in the classic "country club" GOP style) so as to wedge the conservative "Dixiecrats" away from supporting the Dems. That they went as much or more to Wallace as to Nixon didn't bother him -- as long as they were off Humpfrey's roster of supporters.
It may well have been different with RFK as the Dem nominee -- the grief over John Kennedy was still palpable -- but then again it may not have. Nixon's strategy was well crafted for the times and would have hurt the chances of any relatively liberal Dem trying to take the presidency.
Winning a close vote by playing off your opponents against one another is classic politics and not a sign of political inability. Bill Clinton accomplished it twice with resounding effect and to his great political credit. Even Rove/Bush win some points on this scale for "stealing" FL in 2k. They certainly rubbed their hands with glee -- and took prompt advantage -- wherever Nader was siphoning off liberal votes in a close state.
I am not delcaring Nixon void of political savvy. in 68 given his expirence he was probably the most qualified to become president but I cant be as complimentary in my praise as you for the 68 campaign. While he may have invented the southern strategy to hurt humphrey, humphrey wasnt the 1st choice of the dems anyway.
Johnson got scared in NH by McCarthy and then Kennedy jumped in. My contention is Humphrey was thrust into the position by 2 circumstances beyond his control and at best was an adequate candidate.
Hilary on the other hand has been gearing for this bid for some time. The NY senator's seat was phase I and since then she has had a text book run of political decisions. Nixon was a savy guy who knew politics but he reaped benefits of others short comings to get the nod. Hilary will win (or loose) the nomination all by herself.
I picked McCain because out of all candidates he stands out as a man of integrity, something that is sorely missing in the current White House administration.
[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
[QUOTE]
Couple of things about Paul that dont get a lot of press that I like:
1. American Freedom Adgenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Agenda) He is the only republican to sign it.
2. Commitment to american independence (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/) No other candidate has made this decleration.
3. He will end the war in Iraq withdrawing troops ASAP
4. His position on the environment while a stretch is certainly a means to a better end. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/)
5. Fairly consistant. This guy has been outside of the box for sometime. We need more diversity in our political system here in the states, Ron Paul gives us that.
3. He will end the war in Iraq withdrawing troops ASAP
That's just crazy. It won't end the war, if anything, it will plunge Iraq into civil war and chaos. Hardly a good scenario.
That's just crazy. It won't end the war, if anything, it will plunge Iraq into civil war and chaos. Hardly a good scenario.
Its a wonderful scenario, it was a mistake to go there in the first place. Staying there is making the situation worse and worse. The military is for fighting wars, not policing countries who have been force feed a political ideal.
Its a wonderful scenario, it was a mistake to go there in the first place. Staying there is making the situation worse and worse. The military is for fighting wars, not policing countries who have been force feed a political ideal.
I do not see what is so wonderful about a civil war that can potentially kill millions of people. Starting the Iraq campaign was most definitely a mistake of a tremendous magnitude, but pulling our troops out will not return Iraq to its ante-bellum status. I wish it could.
Another plus of staying in Iraq is to maintain pressure on the nearby Iran. I just want Ahmadinejad to always remember that there are 120000 of our guys just across the river, ready to grind the Revolutionary Guard into dust, if necessary.
Finally, I tink it is our obligation to straighten out the mess that we created in Iraq.
discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now? :inquisitive:
It may be 2007, but does that mean the basic principles that the Constitution was based upon no longer apply? I say they are required now more than ever. We all like to say that we love this country, that America is the greatest place in the world, full of freedom and hope. But at the current rate we will be just like any other country run by special interests and corrupt politicians. Frankly, I think the country is too big for a strong federal government, decisions made at that level may not be to the benefit of different regions. More control at the state level.
Sure, some of his ideas are nuts, but he won't be able to undo everything if he gets elected. Scaling back the fed's power will be a good start.
Plus, he has run before (as a Libertarian), and he has served in the military. He did not vote for the Iraq invasion, he wanted a real declaration of war vote (which he would have voted against as well, but at least the forms would have been obeyed). What's not to like?
I do not see what is so wonderful about a civil war that can potentially kill millions of people.
thats one way to look at it, or it could potentially allow Iraqi's to govern themselves void of our presence. The later is a win win for the U.S. the alternative is status quo, you have a 160 billion every quarter for supplemental pentagon spending?
Starting the Iraq campaign was most definitely a mistake of a tremendous magnitude, but pulling our troops out will not return Iraq to its ante-bellum status. I wish it could.
Perhaps it wont, but it will force them to chose there own path. I am an advocate of free will, and wars of conquest if needed. Not exporting ideology, thats what Mr Bush claims the terrorists want to do. The hypocrit he is, he ended up taking the same approach, I've had enough.
Another plus of staying in Iraq is to maintain pressure on the nearby Iran. I just want Ahmadinejad to always remember that there are 120000 of our guys just across the river, ready to grind the Revolutionary Guard into dust, if necessary.
wasnt it Chirac that said if Iran uses nukes they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes? Also the U.S. has spent billions on a military doctrine called force projection. The carrier groups in hormuz are capable of plenty of damage, we dont need another invasion 2 is plenty.
Finally, I tink it is our obligation to straighten out the mess that we created in Iraq.
Fair enough, but my point is I think its in our best intrest to move along and get out. Iraq is smelling more and more like a new cold war way station circa south korea.
thats one way to look at it, or it could potentially allow Iraqi's to govern themselves void of our presence. The later is a win win for the U.S. the alternative is status quo, you have a 160 billion every quarter for supplemental pentagon spending?
The problem is that if we leave now, Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a Shiite Theocracy. That is a win-win scenario for Iran, but hardly for us
Perhaps it wont, but it will force them to chose there own path. I am an advocate of free will, and wars of conquest if needed. Not exporting ideology, thats what Mr Bush claims the terrorists want to do. The hypocrit he is, he ended up taking the same approach, I've had enough.
Fair enough.
wasnt it Chirac that said if Iran uses nukes they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes? Also the U.S. has spent billions on a military doctrine called force projection. The carrier groups in hormuz are capable of plenty of damage, we dont need another invasion 2 is plenty.
I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.
Fair enough, but my point is I think its in our best intrest to move along and get out. Iraq is smelling more and more like a new cold war way station circa south korea.
I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.
The problem is that if we leave now, Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a Shiite Theocracy. That is a win-win scenario for Iran, but hardly for us
Possibly yes, given the Sunni opposition to Iran influence by way of Saudi and Jordan Im not completely sold that Iraq will become an exclusive Shiite theocracy. Its a fair point though...
I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.
I dont count on Europe for anything militarily. By citing Chirac my point was simply to illustrate that Iran would be destroyed if it used nukes. Israel, the U.S. dosent matter the source. I dont want any more war to be honest, but keeping a mistake going and going dosent help anyone. At some point there has to be a draw down I'll take sooner then later.
I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.
Then we will have to agree to disagree then.
:medievalcheers:
Banquo's Ghost
12-04-2007, 19:58
Perhaps I could advise that the Iraq discussion could go to a new thread - Iran already has a topical thread going - and allow those who wish to discuss the nominations to develop this one.
I know policy on Iraq is important, and I'm not saying don't discuss the candidates' views, but further debate on the rights, wrongs or repercussions of the invasion/occupation probably diverts this thread a tad too far.
:bow:
Back to that whole primary thing:
Leftist Democrats have a new angle on why everyone should hate Obama: he's too bipartisan (http://hnn.us/articles/45064.html).
We do not need Obama to heal the rift between good and evil, or to bind up the nation's wounds with Bush's venom still in her bloodstream. Obama's balms of civility and bipartisanship may lull Americans into complacency, but they seem ill-equipped to end the outrages and injustices of the current administration's policies and restore America to moral solvency. Obama has given us no indication that he will exercise the bold, far-reaching, and, yes, partisan leadership that will be necessary to undo the travesties of the past seven years.
Uh, yeah, what we really need is more hyper-partisan politics. Sounds great to me. Whee.
Looks like everybody's looking for ways to dent the two new frontrunners. Anonymous flyers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3951594&page=1) are being spread about Huckabee.
A mysterious group calling itself Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency has begun waging a campaign against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, insinuating that not only is the Republican presidential candidate not a true conservative, he's not a real Christian.
In fliers put under the doors of reporters at the Marriott in Des Moines, where Huckabee was staying Monday night, the organization, whose members are unknown, lays out its interpretation of how the former Baptist minister's views run contrary to the Bible.
Huckabee's support of educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants is portrayed, for instance, as "justification for violating the 8th commandment (stealing from U.S. citizens)." A lighthearted video clip where he pretends to talk to the Lord is portrayed as "sacrilegious mocking of God for political gain."
Looks like everybody's looking for ways to dent the two new frontrunners. Anonymous flyers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3951594&page=1) are being spread about Huckabee...
Being more on the liberal side, I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Huckabee by any stretch, I have to admit at least that the guy is more or less clean, and this mudflinging that he receives from the ultracons is truly sickening.
Being more on the liberal side, I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Huckabee by any stretch, I have to admit at least that the guy is more or less clean, and this mudflinging that he receives from the ultracons is truly sickening.
I don't think we can be positive it's "ultracons". This morning on the radio, I heard one of our local libs going on about how Huckabee isn't a real Christian. Maybe they're scared of him. :laugh4:
I don't think we can be positive it's "ultracons". This morning on the radio, I heard one of our local libs going on about how Huckabee isn't a real Christian. Maybe they're scared of him. :laugh4:
I doubt it. He is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich: direct, straightforward, and completely unelectable.
rvg, Kucinich can't even break out of single digits in polling, whereas Huckabee is now leading in Iowa, despite spending a fraction of the money the other top candidates have. I think Huckabee is for real, contendorship-wise.
Also, I suspect Xiahou is just having a bit of fun suggesting that Dems are actively attempting to sabotage Huckabee's new status. Who has more reason to get dirty right now, the other guys in the Republican primary, or the Dems who are wrestling with their own can of worms? Of course anything's possible. I could with equal validity suggest that the aliens from the Crab Nebula are distributing slanderous flyers.
It will be interesting to see if Huckabee can handle the Swiftboating. I think he can, personally.
Here's a really paranoid thought—Rove made his name in the dirty tricks business by distributing attack leaflets against his own candidate. They were deliberately written to be so offensive that voters would react against them. It worked. Could the Huckster be that tricky? I doubt it.
-edit-
I see we're encouraged to discuss our choices in a little bit of depth. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to support someone who has no realistic chance of winning, so no Richardson or Hunter or such for the purposes of this exercise. Anybody I name must have at least double-digit support, or good chances of gaining it. (A strong upward trend in polling would qualify.)
#1 McCain. I think he would be an outstanding choice for the next four years. I disagree with many of his views, but I think the man is mature, thoughtful, and has appeal beyond his party. Independents can kindle to him, and to a limited extent so can Democrats. Having a uniting figure would be very good for America at this juncture. Also, on the most important issues I think he's dead right. He would end all traces of torture, close Guantanamo, re-affirm the Geneva Conventions, etc. And since the Democrats are likely to expand their hold on the legislative branches, it would be good to have a non-crazy Republican to counterbalance the government. I think the first six years of the Bush administration demonstrated clearly why letting one party get a lock on government is bad.
#2 Obama. Another person who would probably function as a uniting figure. Strong appeal to independents, demonstrated ability to get along and work constructively with people who disagree with him. As for the experience canard, all I can say is that good judgment trumps experience nine times out of ten. Dick Cheney has loads of experience, so does Donald Rumsfeld; and yet both men have been wrong on just about every major point of policy. My major reservation is about handing one party both the legislative and administrative branches. With luck, Obama would be a moderating influence on the more extreme depredations of the Democrats. Note that he has been willing to say some very unpopular things to Democratic audiences, which bodes well.
#3 Ron Paul. Long shot, I know, but he's trending upward fast. A return to Constitutional governance? Yes please! As for some of his nuttier economic ideas, never fear, he'd have a Democratic Congress to hold him in check. Again, it's nice to have two parties (at least) splitting up the active governance.
#4 Mitt Romney. Sure he's a fake, but he's a competent fake. Good record of management in MA, good record of working with Democratic legislators. Might turn out to be a uniting figure, which is kinda what I want after the nasty divisiveness of the Bush admin.
This is kinda hilarious. Clinton campaign staffers feel Obama is an uppity negro (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html).
When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes."
#1 McCain...
Ahh yes. Personally, I would love to see him in the White House.
Louis, Odin and drone pretty much explained why I like Ron Paul.
-Decentralized Power
-Smaller Government
-Honest
-etc
He isn't as crazy as he seems. Like I've also been saying, just because he advocates certain things doesn't mean he will be able to accomplish them.
A vast number of people, me included, are tired of the **** show that is our government.
-Decentralized Power
-Smaller Government
-Honest
You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.
He isn't as crazy as he seems. Like I've also been saying, just because he advocates certain things doesn't mean he will be able to accomplish them.
Yikes! He will most certainly try and as president he might actually succeed in implementing those crazy things.
AntiochusIII
12-04-2007, 22:32
You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.There's a chance you'll be casting your vote away though. And when a protest vote is worth less than a victory vote, no matter how anyone spin it any other way.
Ron Paul's victory [i]is far-fetched. I hate to say it, but when , the "disgruntled" voter who cheers Mr. Paul's name right now will end up choosing the safe bet for the same reason I said above; and if you're not of the bandwagon, saying as you are with a principled mind that Change Has To Start Somewhere, then you better be prepared to see your second- or third-best choice lost because you threw your vote out on Nader in 2000. That is the sad story of any two-party system anywhere, stability and (unfortunately not too effective) defense against extremism comes at a precious cost.
As as a side note, I'm quite sick and tired of the overwhelming obsession on the election from all news fronts to be honest. The more this continues on dragging, the less it remains a political election and the more it becomes the new Reality Show, this time with Much Greater Stakes (and therefore Drama)! Vote with your cellphones today! :no:
It's like this Christmas thing. I [i]don't need goddamn Christmas music on every goddamn store on goddamn December 1. It's sickening, and it makes me want to wage war on Christmas, nuclear winter style. If I'm more pretentious and cynical I'd say this American instant now-now-now culture is rather detrimental to our basic thought processes...
There's a chance you'll be casting your vote away though. And when a protest vote is worth less than a victory vote, no matter how anyone spin it any other way.
Ron Paul's victory [i]is far-fetched. I hate to say it, but when [insert same tired metaphor here], the "disgruntled" voter who cheers Mr. Paul's name right now will end up choosing the safe bet for the same reason I said above; and if you're not of the bandwagon, saying as you are with a principled mind that Change Has To Start Somewhere, then you better be prepared to see your second- or third-best choice lost because you threw your vote out on Nader in 2000. That is the sad story of any two-party system anywhere, stability and (unfortunately not too effective) defense against extremism comes at a precious cost.
You are forgetting the best part of the primary/caucus segment of the election. You don't throw your vote away, there are no protest votes. You get to, in a way, influence your party's national platform. And if by some miracle Paul wins the nomination, odds are it still won't be a throwaway vote, if he's facing Hillary on the other side.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both ******* and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in voting for Ron Paul and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in voting for Ron Paul and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.It's all a pipe dream, but Divinus Arma used to always harp on changing the party from the inside, and this is the best way to go about that. Especially if you live in a state with open primaries. ~;)
Now I'm starting to sound like a standard Paul nut.
seireikhaan
12-04-2007, 23:50
#4 Mitt Romney. Sure he's a fake, but he's a competent fake. Good record of management in MA, good record of working with Democratic legislators. Might turn out to be a uniting figure, which is kinda what I want after the nasty divisiveness of the Bush admin.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=32IO7tX9Co0&feature=related
"We can't be like Democrats"...
Umm, yeah...:sweatdrop:
EDIT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A5FGtR0bHkI
Yeah, we can really rely on what Romney tells us he believes.
EDIT2: "Republicans should act like Republicans."
Mitt, please, shut up.
IrishArmenian
12-05-2007, 00:30
I doubt it. He is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich: direct, straightforward, and completely unelectable.
Sadly, your right. I really would like to see Kucinich in office, much more so than Edwards, but he's too good to be a politician. And besides, the public isn't ready for a FLILF.
woad&fangs
12-05-2007, 00:48
I would like to see a major magaizine conduct a poll of who a person would vote for if "electability" was removed from the equation. I bet that Ron Paul would win hands down. Who would Paul choose as his VP? If him and McCain teamed up I think they would be unstoppable. Could someone tell me Paul's stance on Gay marriage and same sex partnerships in general?
Could someone tell me Paul's stance on Gay marriage and same sex partnerships in general?
I believe he is fairly conservative socially, I know he is against abortion (being a OB/GYN), being a libertarian type he probably cares less about gay marriage. I don't see any mention of it in his issues lists, he probably either doesn't care, or doesn't think it's the federal governments job to legislate.
I believe he is fairly conservative socially, I know he is against abortion (being a OB/GYN), being a libertarian type he probably cares less about gay marriage. I don't see any mention of it in his issues lists, he probably either doesn't care, or doesn't think it's the federal governments job to legislate.
I believe he thinks it's an issue to be left to the states.
woad&fangs
12-05-2007, 01:09
I can live with a socially conservative president that leaves that stuff up to the states.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-05-2007, 02:14
discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now?
Ron Paul is a loon who happens to talk sense on some issues. He has virtually no support outside of the internet which is obsessed with him for some reason. The wikipedia article is dripping with bias:
Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[101] of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[102]
His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 has led experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider hard money policies such as those of Paul.
And his policy positions are wacky:
He would eliminate most federal government agencies as "unnecessary bureaucracies", such as the U.S. Department of Education[22], the U.S. Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service
He appeals to people because he's pretty anti establishment which is popular among disillusioned people.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 06:10
He's Ralph Nader for more cautious libertarians.
He's Ralph Nader for more cautious libertarians.
I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.
What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?
Lord Winter
12-05-2007, 07:25
discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now?
Ice sums it up fairly nicely, its more the princeples then the actual ideas he's running on, and also the belife that this may lead to more congressional power then exuctive power, something we've lost the balance of reletivly recently.
Mcain wouldn't be bad rudy's just a little to conservatve for me. Huckabee's out since he seems like to much of the tool of the religous right, something which it would be nice to see less of. Gullani I could live with, but he seems to gun ho about the war on terror. Obama I could live with to and Edwards wouldn't kill me. I'm not a huge hillary fan though.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-05-2007, 08:48
I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.
What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?
http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/93/214/
By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast.
...
The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
Note: the nafta superhighway is a myth.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/121005slamsbush.htm
"If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."
"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."
"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."
I get the same vibe from him that I get from kucinich. Their passion has a tendency to outweigh their rationality. Not acceptable in a president.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 14:08
I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.
What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?
The viable outsider quality. They threaten what is politically acceptable, but on the tip of everyones tongue.
I am not suggesting that they are the same, just comparable and they appeal to similar general types of people (not the ideas, just the manner in which they are displayed.)
I liked both of them for different reasons. Nader for the one stated above, Paul for the same PLUS his policy suggestions.
I don't think he's actually crazy, but when I hear him in debate it seems like he tries to fill too much too fast into his minute. He comes off sounding like a nut.
HoreTore
12-05-2007, 14:14
You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.
Smaller government??
Don't let the Dark Side tempt you, Lemur! Come, let Comrade Vladimir tell you about the world. After you drink your tox-uhm...glass of completely ordinary water....yes.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 15:37
Vote Horetore. It's open to anyone. I want to see what an innacurate international (Us AND them) sample group thinks. I will check the results after the Iowa vote.
Smaller government??
Don't let the Dark Side tempt you, Lemur! Come, let Comrade Vladimir tell you about the world.
Don't know how to tell you this except bluntly: I'm an American, so at the end of the day I'm all for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. I could more justifiably join the Republican Party than I could ever join the Socialists.
Americans just don't do socialism, not really.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 17:30
Don't know how to tell you this except bluntly: I'm an American, so at the end of the day I'm all for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. I could more justifiably join the Republican Party than I could ever join the Socialists.
Me too.
Don't know how to tell you this except bluntly: I'm an American, so at the end of the day I'm all for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. I could more justifiably join the Republican Party than I could ever join the Socialists.
Americans just don't do socialism, not really.
Well said. And amen.
I forgot to mention free markets. But I guess that's really part of "personal freedom," eh?
Good news from the primary: Hillary and Rudy are in a free-fall (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll), and not just in Iowa. They're dropping like stones nationally. "Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" he chortled in his glee.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 19:04
Good news from the primary: Hillary and Rudy are in a free-fall (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll), and not just in Iowa. They're dropping like stones nationally. "Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" he chortled in his glee.
Those are my least favorite possible choices.
Wow, the Clinton machine is really freaking out. Turns out they were sending out smear emails (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php) about the much-loathed uppity negro:
Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.
They both repeat the Obama/Osama ****, and the "madrassa" charges. And there is the conclusion that Obama is a mole whose intention is to make a Muslim revolution in the US.
Once exposed as a Clinton operative, the peon was sacrificed:
Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:
"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."
It's impossible to know whether or not this was authorized by the campaign, but I'm still kinda amazed. And I'm not inclined to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dirty tricks.
If the Democrats nominate her for the Presidency, they deserve to lose.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-05-2007, 20:53
For Senator Clinton, Senator Obama poses an interesting tactical problem.
She can't out-liberal him as his track record is every bit as "staunch" as hers, and catering a bit more to the Dem left -- though it would cinch the nom for her -- would end up hurting her chances big time in the general. Hilary is well aware of the lessons taught by the Dean implosion. Kerry came off as "electable" by comparison and locked up the nom quickly. Hilary will not let herself be tarnished with a "fringer" image.
If she attacks Obama too virulently, she runs risks with alienating some of the African-descent voters (a key bloc for the Dems) or coming over as too much of a rhymes-with-witch -- which could also hurt her with the electorate (there is still a bit of a double standard here). This must be frustrating, since going negative is often the best means of marginalizing your opponent.
If attacked, she can't play the "victim" card too much without looking weak, but at least then she can counter-punch.
It's interesting to watch the by-play.
Lemur: don't put too much stock in the reports or polls running up to Iowa -- one way or the other. The media always milks this too hard and those Iowans don't really decide until they wander into their respective high schools.
Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.
High visibility campaign + tech-unsavvy campaign workers + smear job = lulz for all ~D
Google rules. ~:cheers:
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2007, 21:31
Wow, the Clinton machine is really freaking out. Turns out they were sending out smear emails (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php) about the much-loathed uppity negro:
It's impossible to know whether or not this was authorized by the campaign, but I'm still kinda amazed. And I'm not inclined to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dirty tricks.Et tu, Lemur? Come on, you can wage a more solid attack at the 'Hildebeast' than a google for a misguided county volunteer plus an eagerly thrown about allegation of involvement from the top.
Should I now google for a blog too, to show that this Clinton supporter, who has also posed as an Obama supporter, is in reality an Obama-machine mole trying to make Clinton look dirty and gain sympathy for Obama?
Also, I'm quite sure that before november '08 we'll have seen smear-campaigns far outweighing this from all candidates. If this is the worst that you can come up with for the Clinton camp yet, than I congratulate her for being such a comparatively honest player.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-05-2007, 21:49
Also, I'm quite sure that before november '08 we'll have seen smear-campaigns far outweighing this from all candidates. If this is the worst that you can come up with for the Clinton camp yet, than I congratulate her for being such a comparatively honest player.
Hahahahahahaha wow.
Don't know how to tell you this except bluntly: I'm an American, so at the end of the day I'm all for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. I could more justifiably join the Republican Party than I could ever join the Socialists.
Americans just don't do socialism, not really.
Too bad the current neocons favor debt, war, and retarded moral laws. Man, what happened to the party?
So I can choose between one sack of crap party that tells me I'm a racist if I don't like affirmative action and paying high taxes, or another party that tells me I'm going to hell if I don't like hating gays and war.
GOOD STUFF
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2007, 23:54
Hahahahahahaha wow.One grassroots volunteer (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_county_chair_who_sent_obama_muslim_smear_email_is_identified.php) forwarding right-wing hate mail does not a smear campaign make.
Nothing points in the direction of any involvement of the Clinton team.
So the Iowa county chair who was volunteering for Hillary and sent the Obama Muslim smear email has been identified: She's one Judy Rose.
Judy Rose -- or, at least, someone with the same name -- is, or was, one of the members of the 250 Iowa women who are leading Team Hillary in that state.
Louis VI the Fat
12-06-2007, 00:07
Sasaki made me reconsider some of Giuliani's track record. Others have given me a more balanced perspective on Ron Paul. Thanks for that.
I've got a new question: What's not to like about America's next president, Hillary Clinton? I mean, I'm not sure, but I've got this gut feeling that some of you here have minor doubts about her. Why? She is obviously America's right choice for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. Yet I sense minor disagreement with my take on her. What am I overlooking?
Er..I actually meant to write a serious post when I started this. Let's try again, more directly:
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
For me her stance on issues is middling. The reason I don't like her is that I don't trust her. Of all the candidates running she reminds me the most of the stereotypical cigar smoking fat old white man politician. She has switched positions and seems much like Bill.
She also plays the political game too much. Best example, her campaign dug up a kindergarten (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/clinton-aide-sa.html) essay written by Obama to discredit him. (But apparently it's a joke now?)
And I don't want dynasties. We've had Bush I and II, no Clinton I and II
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
She's a Clinton, she's EVIL!11!one!!1!!eleven!
Now that that is out of the way, on to my real concerns.
If elected, she will have a Democrat-controlled Congress to rubber-stamp her desires (much like most of the Bush administration).
She will most likely continue to move more power to the executive, she is smart and politically savvy enough to do so.
There are still too many unanswered questions about the goings-on in Slick Willy's administration, which she played a large role in.
The GOP will never accept her. More partisanship and bile for the news, subpar government for the people amidst all the backstabbing.
And I just don't trust her. She never met a fundraiser she doesn't like, carpetbagged a job in the Senate for New York state (of all places), and stuck with Bill through all his shenanigan's for political reasons, when she should have kicked him to the curb like any good feminist would. Too much ambition.
Oh, and one other thing. I don't want to foot the bill for another 8 years of Secret Service protection for Chelsea. :thinking:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2007, 00:45
As far as a smear campaign, ever since she began to lose ground in the polls she's personally attacked her rivals and tried to pretend that their criticisms of her are attacks. She calls obama "naive" and then accuses him of attacking her when he says "she hasn't taken a clear position on this issue". Her most recent talking point was making fun of him for a paper he wrote in kindergarten which she later tried to claim was a joke (despite it being part of a serious letter and in a completely different form from all her past jokes).
Her health care plan involves mandates, which obama's doesn't. She uses this to attack his plan as "leaving 15 million americans uninsured". But really, her plan does as well. Car insurance is mandatory and 11% of drivers don't have it. They started a health care mandate program in massachusetts, and huge numbers of people refuse to pay for insurance even though it's mandatory. They can't afford it and would rather risk not getting sick. Obama's plan focuses on making health care as affordable as possible.
She's extremely vague on social security. Her answer to that question during the debate was "I believe in fiscal responsibility. I'll set up a bipartisan commitee to look into it". Obama would raise the cap on people making more than $97,000 which clinton calls a tax on the middle class (!), note that only the richest 6% make over that amount.
She voted for the iraq war, and recently to declare the iran national guard a terrorist unit.
The biggest issue is that she isn't honest. She believes that she knows what's best and will tell it to the people in a form they want to hear. This kind of belief is what got us into iraq in the first place--the bush administration believed it was best to go to war and told stories about wmd's etc.
I've got a new question: What's not to like about America's next president, Hillary Clinton? I mean, I'm not sure, but I've got this gut feeling that some of you here have minor doubts about her. Why? She is obviously America's right choice for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. Yet I sense minor disagreement with my take on her. What am I overlooking?
Er..I actually meant to write a serious post when I started this. Let's try again, more directly:
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
Not to be mean, but is this a joke?
Smaller government?
HAHAHAHA
emm, sorry
a) I don't trust her
b) She's not smaller government. No democrat that is running is smaller government. Anyone who tells you they are, is not telling the truth.
That pretty much sums up why I don't like her.
She's extremely vague on social security. Her answer to that question during the debate was "I believe in fiscal responsibility. I'll set up a bipartisan commitee to look into it". Obama would raise the cap on people making more than $97,000 which clinton calls a tax on the middle class (!), note that only the richest 6% make over that amount.
Sorry Sasaki, although 97k is a good salary, people who make that are not really considered wealthy.
Besides, you have to look geographically. Someone is Orange County making 97k a year is probably considered middle class.
Anyway, Obama's plan would pretty much be a band aid. Sooner or later, SS will run out as more people retire and the fund will dry up unless it is somehow reformed in a correct manner.
I'd vote for her (if she gets nominated) just to see if having a woman in the office would make a difference. Can't be that bad. Heck, we've had an ape in the office for the past 7 years and look, we're still here, still alive. I wouldn't mind the experiment if the dems nominate her. The only way I wouldn't vote for her is if the pubs select McCain.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2007, 01:46
Sorry Sasaki, although 97k is a good salary, people who make that are not really considered wealthy.
Besides, you have to look geographically. Someone is Orange County making 97k a year is probably considered middle class.
Anyway, Obama's plan would pretty much be a band aid. Sooner or later, SS will run out as more people retire and the fund will dry up unless it is somehow reformed in a correct manner.
The only people who don't consider it upper class are the people who don't understand the concept of 'middle'. If your coach tells you to stand near the middle of the field do you go lounge around in a lawn chair down by the endzone wearing a suit and sipping a martini?
AntiochusIII
12-06-2007, 01:55
She is obviously America's right choice for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom.Not really.
Capitalism? Possibly. Few Presidents ever had the bravery (or the gall) to stand up against Corporate America or implement wide-ranging social or economic reforms, especially not without a crisis with the scale of the Great Depression. No politician would want to lose the single largest pool of campaign money in the entire United States by opposing business interests, not in these days when "war chest" wins elections. And if anyone's a politician, it's Mrs. Clinton.
The same haphazard, consumer rights-breaking capitalistic model will stay with the USA into the forseeable future, regardless of the next President's attitudes.
Smaller government? Of course not. She's a Democrat, an ex-President's wife (as such familiar with "power"), and doesn't show any signs of planning to reduce any government functions any time soon. Everybody talks about reducing government -- it is a big deal to a lot of Americans -- but just about nobody except that loon Ron Paul will actually try an act on it. Not a chance.
Reagan's "smaller government" saw the Military-Industrial Complex expanded to unprecedented sizes after all...
Personal Freedom? lol. People hate Hillary and Giuliani for a reason: they appear like Putin-lites. Imperial Presidents, I think, is the term. Sounds cool, sounds powerful; world-changing world leaders and all that. But I love my rights more than my King or Queen. And I don't want a repeat of King George's "Patriots."
One thing annoying about opposing her is that her supporters will quickly point you out as a misogynist. I call them racists for being anti-Obama in return, but hey, all's fair in Politics. :sweatdrop:
The only people who don't consider it upper class are the people who don't understand the concept of 'middle'. If your coach tells you to stand near the middle of the field do you go lounge around in a lawn chair down by the endzone wearing a suit and sipping a martini?Not that I don't think 97000$ is "rich," but I believe Ice's point has to do with relative living costs as well. A 97000$ in Southern California means much less than the same money in Tucson, Arizona.
Besides, everybody calls himself a "Middle Class" person in America. ~;)
The only people who don't consider it upper class are the people who don't understand the concept of 'middle'. If your coach tells you to stand near the middle of the field do you go lounge around in a lawn chair down by the endzone wearing a suit and sipping a martini?
So someone making an income that is 50% +- of the population isn't middle class?
Edit: Sorry +-
woad&fangs
12-06-2007, 04:21
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
No problem with her policies really. Her and Obama have almost the exact same stance on every issue and I agree with most of them. The problem as several people have stated is that she can't be trusted. She is in it for the personal glory and not what is best for the American people. If you support her policies then I suggest that you check out Obama.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-06-2007, 04:28
Why is Hilary a problem?
Is it because she'd likely end up as our most incompentent president ever? NO! We've had some real nimrods in there on occasion. Harding comes to mind. Carter is my personal fave for this (personal honor score excellent, just couldn't get it done in the oval).
Is it because she'd lead an administration riddled with corruption? No! She'd have to go a long stretch to reach the pinnacles established by Grant's thieves (Grant himself was okay, but his coterie....:shame: ) or Harding's scoundrels and pimps (yes they really were running a call-girl service out of the back door of the White House).
No, I think it's because of Hilary's relationship with power. When I consider her, I just have trouble shaking the feeling that I'm looking at someone who would consume their own young to achieve the pinnacle of power.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2007, 04:34
So someone making an income that is 50% +- of the population isn't middle class?
Edit: Sorry +-
I don't what you mean with the +-.
"Middle class" is very vague unless you specify the context. Originally it meant white collar jobs vs blue collar jobs, but it can mean a certain lifestyle, beliefs, income level etc. But there is a context here since we are discussing taxes. So the measuring stick is income level. I would say that people who don't have enough money are poor, people who have enough are middle class, and people who have more than enough are upper class. If you make 97k you make more than enough money. The only people who think otherwise have a distorted idea of "enough". The tax would come out to 2-3k.
Not that I don't think 97000$ is "rich," but I believe Ice's point has to do with relative living costs as well. A 97000$ in Southern California means much less than the same money in Tucson, Arizona.
That's like saying "yeah I have a really expensive car, so I have less money than my neighbor with a used buick". Southern California costs more to live in because it's more desirable, i.e. people are willing to pay more to live there. They get what they pay for.
I guess the criticism your making is that someone who makes 87000 in tucson, would normally make 97000 in so-cal, but with the tax they only end up with 95. But this is inherent in our bracketed system. There are tons of people who lose money if they go up in salary.
Besides, everybody calls himself a "Middle Class" person in America.
Exactly. No one wants to be seen as "upper class" and not many want to be seen as "working class". The middle class is the ideal, the "real americans". Which is why clinton tries to imply that her opponents would tax them more.
Not to completely derail the thread, but I don't think $97,000 is the mean or median income in America. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Going back to the Hillary subject, my objections to her are as follows:
Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II. This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't to me. This is America, and we just don't do dynasties. Or at least we shouldn't. If I never have to hear about another Bush or Clinton again, I'll be quite happy.
Honesty. I realize that all politicians will say what they have to say to gain and retain power, but the Clintons take dishonesty to a new and spectacular level of artistry. I expect politicians to bend the truth, but I don't like for them to do it constantly.
Power for power's sake. I fear a Hillary presidency will only increase the pace at which the Administrative branch of our government swallows more power. As drone pointed out, she's plenty savvy enough to consolidate the Imperial Presidency.
One-party rule. Didn't we get enough of that under Bush II?
Paranoia. Both Hillary and Rudy have paranoid tendencies, and tend to define the world in Us v. Them battlefields. Haven't we had enough of that lately? Aren't we ready for something different? I don't call her "Nixon in a pantsuit" randomly.
I hope that provides some sort of framework for understanding why I oppose her.
-edit-
Thought of one more objection: Polarization. Hillary's Presidency would be a win for anyone who enjoys scorched-earth partisan warfare. She'd be great for Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh, but bad for the nation. We do not need another divisive president. Not now.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-06-2007, 14:30
Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II. This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't to me. This is America, and we just don't do dynasties. Or at least we shouldn't. If I never have to hear about another Bush or Clinton again, I'll be quite happy.
This point of contention grows on me more each time I ponder it. You're correct, my proto-simian friend, "dynasties" should feel wrong to all of usin the good ole USA. As should the possibility for Jeb making it Bush III to follow Clinton II and Chelsea to follow that. Even the Romans thought it best to spread the leadership among the gens more than that.
Honesty. I realize that all politicians will say what they have to say to gain and retain power, but the Clintons take dishonesty to a new and spectacular level of artistry. I expect politicians to bend the truth, but I don't like for them to do it constantly.
It's a dirty era politically -- they recur for us with some frequency -- so in that context this is less bothersome to me (though I agree with you, of course).
Power for power's sake. I fear a Hillary presidency will only increase the pace at which the Administrative branch of our government swallows more power. As drone pointed out, she's plenty savvy enough to consolidate the Imperial Presidency.
Already posted on this just above.
One-party rule. Didn't we get enough of that under Bush II?
I get frustrated to how partisanship plays in with this, but not to 1 party having a period of temporary dominance in and of itself. If the party in the minority took a watch dog role -- as in: you're calling the shots, but if we see fraud, abuse of power etc. we'll crucify you for it and take back control for our agenda -- that would be fine. With our currently hyped-up partisanship, what we get is: you're calling the shots, NOT! We're gonna mess with everything you do since everything you do is evil incarnate (even -- or especially -- if it makes sense) and use every trick to prevent you from doing anything, prevent you from getting any credit except for failure and then hammer you as a group of do-nothings and losers. This doesn't gridlock government, it hamstrings it. I like smaller government. Large AND inneffective is the worst of BOTH.
Paranoia. Both Hillary and Rudy have paranoid tendencies, and tend to define the world in Us v. Them battlefields. Haven't we had enough of that lately? Aren't we ready for something different? I don't call her "Nixon in a pantsuit" randomly.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Heard any Hannity or Savage broadcasts in the last couple of years? :devilish:
I agree with you as to her approach. She does political reward and punish in a very Nixonian fashion. If anything, the Clinton team is more effective at political destruction. Nixon's crew embarrassed Muskie and took out the only viable opposition in one move. Clinton's team likes to do that and, if possible, end the career of their opponent as well to minimize revenge strikes. Its practical in an RTW "always exterminate" sort of way.
Polarization. Hillary's Presidency would be a win for anyone who enjoys scorched-earth partisan warfare. She'd be great for Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh, but bad for the nation. We do not need another divisive president. Not now.
I think the current era of hyper-partisanship is a phasic component of US politics. However, Hillary's election would do NOTHING to bring us toward a shift in phase. As you and others have noted it would only intensify it.
Some good thoughts Lemur.
ICantSpellDawg
12-06-2007, 16:57
Romney's faith speech was great.
GB and Bar made a cameo
That out-of-control lunatic, Ron Paul, had this to say:
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.
Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.
Who but a madman could spout such nonsense?
Apologies for jumping off topic,
Lemur, Sasaki, Ice,
The 97,000 is in the Top 20% for income. It's about the average for someone with a Doctorate. The middle 33% range is $30,000 to $62,500.
Some Fun Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States). Now that that's done...
May I say that Ron Paul is growing on me daily. Why must he be a foreign policy and economic disaster waiting to happen?
Why must he be a foreign policy and economic disaster waiting to happen?
Because he dosent toe the current republican party line: Spend more then any other administration in history (backed by a republican congress) and export ideology via military force.
The fact that he dosent adhere to these new concepts of the republican party scares them.
Because he dosent toe the current republican party line: Spend more then any other administration in history (backed by a republican congress) and export ideology via military force.
The fact that he dosent adhere to these new concepts of the republican party scares them.
Them meaning the rank and file of the party not Lemur, Ice or Sasaki.
Cant edit posts yet so thought I would post a clarification of them
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2007, 22:44
Apologies for jumping off topic,
Lemur, Sasaki, Ice,
The 97,000 is in the Top 20% for income. It's about the average for someone with a Doctorate. The middle 33% range is $30,000 to $62,500.
Some Fun Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States). Now that that's done...
That's household income not individual income--the tax is on individuals.
Who but a madman could spout such nonsense?
Ron paul is way ahead of most of the republican candidates and most issues and ahead of many of the democratic candidates on some issues. War on drugs comes to mind. But his economic ideas are terrible (gold standard), he wouldn't intervene overseas even if there were very good reasons for it, and he cites the FDA, FEMA, and the department of energy as wasteful organizations that need to be cut.
comedy answer: even a broken watch is right twice a day
ICantSpellDawg
12-06-2007, 22:45
I absolutely love Ron Paul.
I support Romney, but if Romney was beaten by Ron Paul, I would be fine with that. They are my two top choices and have drastically different ideologies. Those are two routes that I think the U.S. should take and either way is fine by me.
comedy answer: even a broken watch is right twice a day:yes:
Also, while he's in principle pro-free trade, his all-or-nothing approach to it has led him to oppose virtually every free trade agreement that's come up for a vote. As president, with an increasingly protectionist Democrat congress he could do significant damage to both our economy and to our relationships with our allies.
Ron Paul, as he was summed up by the Club for Growth is:the Perfect as the Enemy of the Good. I'd say that's a decent assessment.
Because he dosent toe the current republican party lineNo, many of his policies are disastrous- plain and simple. I like much of his ideology, but when it comes to how he wants to put it into practice- he fails.
But his economic ideas are terrible (gold standard),
Who cares?
The point is he is for a more open and free economy with lower taxes.
FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.
he wouldn't intervene overseas even if there were very good reasons for it,
You are very being vague. What are these "good" reasons?
and he cites the FDA, FEMA, and the department of energy as wasteful organizations that need to be cut.
I don't really know much about FEMA or the department of energy, but I'm not really a fan of the FDA. People should be able to take whatever they want, given a warning that it might not be throughly or accurately tested.
Besides a recent drug I was taking which was deemed "safe" by the FDA, wasn't really to safe to me after all. I had some unwritten side effects.
Sorry Saski, I don't really want a nanny state with high taxes and limited freedom.
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2007, 00:52
Thanks for everybody's take on America's next president, Hillary Clinton.
Romney. I declare him unfit to govern a free country. I just read his speech about religious tolerance. There are some good thoughts and reminders about America's tradition of, and path to, religious tolerance in it. However, in his (just) cause to take away reservations about his faith, he forgets one thing: America was not only build on faith, but also on liberty of thought. What of those who are not religious?
I understand that every candidate must pay at least lip-service to America's overwhelmingly religious electorate. And I understand that Romney in particular needs to stress the universality of his faith. But even so, I can't help but be shocked by this speech.
Not the abolition of slavery, nor the civil rights movement, nor the Catholic president Kennedy, nor a female, Mormon, Afro- or Jewish American for president will be the ultimate sign of America fullfilling it's promise of liberty for all, but an atheist president, declaring America to not be one nation under God, but one nation under liberty and equality for all. One day, one day...
Romney's speech (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7238.html) in full. Below are two excerpts. Some of which I liked, some of which I fiercely oppose.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
What of those who are not religious?
What about them? I must've missed the part in his speech about compulsory religion for everyone. :shrug:
Who cares?
The point is he is for a more open and free economy with lower taxes.
FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.
Yes, but...who appoints people like the Secretary of the Treasury? He cannot do it himself. But he can put people in positions of power who agree with him. And Xiahou hit the nail on the head, his ideology is great but he would be a horrible president practically.
I don't really know much about FEMA or the department of energy, but I'm not really a fan of the FDA. People should be able to take whatever they want, given a warning that it might not be throughly or accurately tested.
Besides a recent drug I was taking which was deemed "safe" by the FDA, wasn't really to safe to me after all. I had some unwritten side effects.
Sorry Saski, I don't really want a nanny state with high taxes and limited freedom.
?
Yes, the FDA puts out bad drugs sometimes, sometimes they're in the pockets of the people making the drugs. But if we get rid of them you wanna think about how many quacky useless harmful drugs are going to be on the market? There's a reason we have an FDA, before we had it people were dying because of tainted products. If the government keeps some greedy schmucks from selling me rat poison as Tylenol then I don't call that a nanny state, and I am more than willing to give up my right to tainted meat.
But that's just me.
That's household income not individual income--the tax is on individuals.
Oops. Missed that little bit, the numbers you want are in the article.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-07-2007, 20:46
FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.
This is questionable. Congress did enact modifications to an existing act (originally focused on preventing trade with Germany during WW1) that greatly widened the scope of Presidential authority on matters economic.
Section 1. The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.
Sec. 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President [emphasis added by Seamus], the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof- and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this Subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both As used in this subdivision the term 'person' means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation."
Sec. 3. Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(n) Whenever in the judgement of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations. Upon receipt of such gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay all costs of the transportation of such gold bullion, gold certificates, coin, or currency, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be reasonably necessary. Any individual, partnership, association, or corporation failing to comply with any requirement of the Secretary of the Treasury made under this subsection shall be subject to a penalty equal to twice the value of the gold or gold certificates in respect of which such failure occurred, and such penalty may be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury by suit or otherwise."
Roosevelt had been in office 5 days. He promptly prohibited the private ownership of gold save for jewelry and effectively (de facto, not de jure) removed us from the gold standard -- an action taken formally by Great Britain 2 years previously. Gold, previously valued at $20.67/ounce, was fixed at $35/ounce (deflating the value of the currency by 41%).
Thus an emergency AS DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT is sufficient to allow for action by executive order.
President Nixon took this further by announcing that the USA would no longer trade currency for gold at the agreed $35/ounce of the era. Private ownership of gold was re-allowed, but since the treasury was no longer trading in gold per se, the currency rapidly became a "floating" currency (as were most major currencies even before this.
All of these efforts were accomplished without benefit of any legislation from Congress.
Should he become President of the USA, Ron Paul could declare that an economic crisis exists wherein US dollars, lacking inherent value, pose a damaging threat to the USA and then issue an executive order cancelling the previously promulgated executive orders regarding redemption of currency for gold and modifcations to its valuation, returning the USA to the gold standard as established by Congress in 1900 -- $20.67/troy ounce. New currency would have to be issued to reflect the correct amount of gold on reserve in the Federal system and what would happen to the current dollars is anyone's guess.
To "stop" Paul, Congress would have to pass specific laws voiding those efforts and maintaining things using the current system. They would also have to do so by a 2/3 majority vote to insure their ability to over-ride the inevitable veto.
...at least that's the way I read it.
woad&fangs
12-07-2007, 20:54
I'm pretty sure that we can count on 2/3rds of the Congress to vote against returning to the gold standard. If Paul gets to crazy then the Congress will just impeach him anyways.
I'm pretty sure that we can count on 2/3rds of the Congress to vote against returning to the gold standard. If Paul gets to crazy then the Congress will just impeach him anyways.
It's not good enough. Ron Paul is a loose cannon, and it is way too dangerous to have someone like him in the oval office.
I think folks are being more than a little unfair to the Paul. I watched an interview with him some months ago, and the journo was throwing all of these extreme positions at him, to which Paul basically responded, "That's where I'd ultimately like to go, but it's going to take a long time, and I wouldn't try to do anything too disruptive at once."
I can see that point. I just don't know, I hear "loose cannon," "loon" and "insane" being thrown around, and the man just doesn't seem to live up to the defamation.
Hillary update: "Maybe the Clintons aren't as smart as we thought they were?" (http://thehill.com/a.b.-stoddard/for-hillary-heavy-going-in-the-hawkeye-state-2007-12-05.html)
But lately Hillary careened off the high road, down the exit ramp and into the bowels of political pettiness. The Clinton campaign’s press release accusing Obama of stating his desire to be president in a kindergarten essay is one for the ages. Mark Penn, her pollster, went on television the following day to say it was just a joke but the damage had been done. The Clintons don’t joke.
Marc Ambinder has a fascinating piece in The Atlantic this month that reveals Team Clinton didn’t see Obama’s presidential bid coming. He reports that in 2006 they still only saw John Edwards as a potential rival, and the story shows they were right — Obama changed his mind to run this time, having always planned to look at the idea 10 years hence. This means the Clinton campaign knows Obama didn’t actually come to the Senate planning his presidential run — but that is beside the point. Ambinder found that Obama’s financial success and “rapturous” reception stunned HillaryLand and she was able to find her footing only after the first debate when her strong response to a question about a terrorist attack, and Obama’s weak one, made him look like a rookie.
woad&fangs
12-07-2007, 21:13
It's not good enough. Ron Paul is a loose cannon, and it is way too dangerous to have someone like him in the oval office.
I'm curious if anyone knows his record as a senator. I bet we would see a lot of sensible votes.
I think folks are being more than a little unfair to the Paul. I watched an interview with him some months ago, and the journo was throwing all of these extreme positions at him, to which Paul basically responded, "That's where I'd ultimately like to go, but it's going to take a long time, and I wouldn't try to do anything too disruptive at once."It's tough to make progress towards any reform when he opposes incremental changes because they're not perfect.
Ron Paul has opposed many free trade agreements during his time in Congress:
* Voted against Fast Track Authority[36]
* Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
* Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
* Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
* Voted against CAFTA[40]
* Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
* Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
* Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam[43]
While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government's role in the process, arguing that "We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do."[44] His philosophical support for free trade is evidenced by his support for legislation lifting government-imposed trade barriers, such as the Cuba embargo,[45] and legislation allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs.[46]
Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,"[47] but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul's rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists.Again from the Club for Growth (http://clubforgrowth.com/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php):
Summation
When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
I can see that point. I just don't know, I hear "loose cannon," "loon" and "insane" being thrown around, and the man just doesn't seem to live up to the defamation.
The gold standard is loony. :yes:
OTOH, he's still better than any Democrat candidate. :wink:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-07-2007, 22:22
I wasn't arguing for or against Ron Paul with my post on Executive orders. I was merely countering a claim that, as President, he would not have the power to act on some of his preferences.
I actually like him a bit -- just not as a candidate for President.
Some of his supporters are loons -- but I could make that claim of a lot of our would-bes.
I must've missed the part in [Romney's] speech about compulsory religion for everyone. :shrug:
Of course Romney said nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty amused by his wriggling on the issue (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php).
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday
It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.
Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
woad&fangs
12-08-2007, 19:17
Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.[/indent]
:dizzy2: A new "religion" offends the Evangelicals and their Mormon hero. O NOs!!! Say it ain't so!!! :dizzy2:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
And here I was thinking that Hypocrisy and Scumminess wears a pantsuit. How wrong I was apparently:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
This is a prime example of why I dislike Romney.
Marshal Murat
12-08-2007, 22:16
Xiahou, what about bias in your articles?
Banquo's Ghost
12-08-2007, 22:34
Xiahou, what about bias in your articles?
Honestly, haven't we had enough of that little joke? The point has been made, can we move on?
:bow:
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 03:33
Of course Romney said nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty amused by his wriggling on the issue (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php).
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday
It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.
Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
The American system has nothing to do with Atheists in a similar way that it has nothing to do with fascists. Incompatible concepts.
In order to accommodate either, a re-write of the foundations and wording of the entire system would be necessary.
I am agnostic, but I recognize that "God" and the concepts of the Judeo Christian ethic are the center of the laws of this country. All Religions with similar values based on a superlative are welcome, but anything that contradicts them will need a new system.
A New system may not be what most are looking for. Expect them to push back.
You can look at it in other ways too, it's arguable
The American system has nothing to do with Atheists in a similar way that it has nothing to do with fascists. Incompatible concepts.
In order to accommodate either, a re-write of the foundations and wording of the entire system would be necessary.
I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion. The words "God," "Almighty" and "Lord" appear only obliquely in the founding documents. In the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) the Lord shows up thusly:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
God, the Almighty and Jesus don't even get a mention.
In the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) God shows up, but only in a weird quasi-Rousseau kinda way:
... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ...
The fact of the matter is that our Founding Fathers were fresh from Europe's Wars of Religion (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM), had Cromwell's puritan paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England) fresh in their minds, and wanted nothing to do with creating any sort of Judeo-Christian anything.
The Founders were, by and large, Deists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist) and Pantheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheist). The modern attempt to re-imagine them as a bunch of Christian fundamentalists is worrisome.
Could America have occurred without Christianity? No way. But it's much more pertinent to ask whether America could have happened without the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).
-edit-
I guess no such discussion would be complete without dragging Jefferson into it. Here's what he had to say about the role of religion in the public life: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Rather different from what we hear today, no?
-edit of the edit-
Then there's the Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli), signed in 1796, approved by then-President Adams, which has this bit of trivia:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
As the accompanying article states:
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. It was the 339th time a recorded vote was taken in the Senate and only the third time a unanimous result was obtained. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
Make of that what you will.
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 05:34
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
That sounds like a creator with a plan to me. Without those statements, all laws are hollow and arbitrary.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That sounds like a creator with a plan to me. Without that statement, all laws are hollow and arbitrary.
You can certainly read it that way, but the text is hardly going out of its way to put God at the center of the action. Do we hold these truths to be God-given? No. Do we hold these truths to be revelatory? No. We hold them to be self-evident.
Compare our Constitution with other charters and documents of the time. It was standard practice to declare, as often as possible, how much God approved of this township or this state. Most such documents would have whole paragraphs extolling the Almighty and declaring that the signers were his favorite people. If anything, our Constitution is barren of the Divine by comparison.
It's true, God does get mentioned, but it's a stretch to take that and conclude that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, especially when so many of the Founders contradict that sentiment.
Which is not to say that America cannot be remade into a Christian nation.
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 06:19
You can certainly read it that way, but the text is hardly going out of its way to put God at the center of the action. Do we hold these truths to be God-given? No. Do we hold these truths to be revelatory? No. We hold them to be self-evident.
Compare our Constitution with other charters and documents of the time. It was standard practice to declare, as often as possible, how much God approved of this township or this state. Most such documents would have whole paragraphs extolling the Almighty and declaring that the signers were his favorite people. If anything, our Constitution is barren of the Divine by comparison.
It's true, God does get mentioned, but it's a stretch to take that and conclude that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, especially when so many of the Founders contradict that sentiment.
Which is not to say that America cannot be remade into a Christian nation.
It's Judeo-Christian ethical origin is a matter of reality, but is not stated within any text. The idea of God, or even a single God IS. In addition, the truths
are "self-evident" as endowed by the creator. If you leave the creator out of the foundation of the nation and the source of the rights that it protects, I believe that you would be misleading yourself. Those rights are not self-evident by any stretch of the imagination without a fancy superlative.
TuffStuff, our disagreement over the Declaration of Independence will have to stand, since there's no way to resolve a dispute over emphasis.
Do you have any response to the Treaty of Tripoli?
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 07:19
It was not stated in the constitution, so I agree that it was not founded on the Christian Religion. It is founded on the idea of a creator, which I believe was worded as a singular one. (That is my statement on the Treaty which, until you brought it up and I read it, I had never heard of in that context)
The ethical origin of the United State is clearly Judeo-Christian, I don't think you will argue with that. It also has its origins in enlightenment thought (which are largely based on Judeo-Christian morality as well). I think of the two as Father and Mother of the United States. To disregard one or the other would be un-realistic.
This is the first little disagreement that I have had without the contents devolving into personal insults (on either side). Thank you Lemur! Next time I disagree on something with you I will remain civil!
I agree to not hijack the thread to beat any more dead horses (the official sport of the backroom)
EDIT
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm
In the translation from Arabic, count how many times "God" (47) and "American Christians" (10) are mentioned. Same treaty ratified by congress. Article 11 is strangely absent. How much authority do the words in it hold?
Either way, "The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped."
Crazed Rabbit
12-09-2007, 08:04
Anyone who thinks Kucinich would not be the worst president America has ever had, that he's anything more than a scheming demogouge, that he's any better than a filthy panderer to bigots and rose to power on race baiting needs to read this article on the real history of Kucinich's truly disastrous mayorship, characterized by putting a twenty something with no experience in law enforcement, only blind loyalty to Kucinich in charge of the police.
http://www.clevescene.com/2007-12-05/news/the-king-of-spin
Crazed Rabbit
Kralizec
12-09-2007, 23:17
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3546/giulianicrimeratemm0.png
Your point being...? The general crime decrease in NY is clearly stronger than nationwide. LA is just one other city that's been more successful than average in reducing crime. Newark rather gives the impression that it didn't even have a police station until 1996, and besides with 275,000 people it's a village compared to NY or LA.
CountArach
12-10-2007, 03:46
From an outsiders perspective, Kucinich looks like the kind of guy I would want running my country.
I think folks are being more than a little unfair to the Paul. I watched an interview with him some months ago, and the journo was throwing all of these extreme positions at him, to which Paul basically responded, "That's where I'd ultimately like to go, but it's going to take a long time, and I wouldn't try to do anything too disruptive at once."
I can see that point. I just don't know, I hear "loose cannon," "loon" and "insane" being thrown around, and the man just doesn't seem to live up to the defamation.
Didn't we recently see a thread about Ron Paul proposing legislation to abolish the Fed? Is that something he doesn't consider "distruptive"? I think most normal people would consider that pretty radical a change. I don't suppose the journo brought that up?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-10-2007, 04:15
Your point being...? The general crime decrease in NY is clearly stronger than nationwide. LA is just one other city that's been more successful than average in reducing crime. Newark rather gives the impression that it didn't even have a police station until 1996, and besides with 275,000 people it's a village compared to NY or LA.
The crime decrease was better before he took office. He would have to show that the trend wouldn't have continued if it weren't for his actions. He hasn't done that.
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_po/clinton_obama_religion) for Obama smear emails.
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7282.html). If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_po/clinton_obama_religion) for Obama smear emails.
Hilary is nervous, he has a real shot at loosing Iowa to Obama and just 2 weeks ago the press had practically annointed her emperess.
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7282.html). If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
Newt awaits? :inquisitive:
Seriously, if she happens to get the prize he might be the best choice for the right to resurge. I still havent figured out why he isnt running, certainly he would be in the top 3 with this field.
If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
A renaissance?
have they gone anywhere?
last time I looked they´re in office right now.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 17:20
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_po/clinton_obama_religion) for Obama smear emails.
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7282.html). If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
Uhm, no offense to you or Politico there Lemur, but have either of you seen the campaign ads from Giuliani, McCain or Romney lately? Since September, all 3 have been running against Hillary, not each other. Just about the only Republican I haven't seen make the point how unlike Hillary they are the focal point of an ad is Ron Paul, very much to his credit (one of the few things I like about the guy, actually).
P.S. For those of you who aren't all that politically active, "Far-right" = "believe that maybe the government doesn't have the answer to every problem".
A renaissance?
have they gone anywhere?
last time I looked they´re in office right now.
The GOP is very much in decline at the moment. As with all things it's temporary, but a Hillary presidency would definitely hasten teh rebirth.
For those of you who aren't all that politically active, "Far-right" = "believe that maybe the government doesn't have the answer to every problem".
I love how unsettled our Republican Orgahs get after spending some time in the Toe-Tappin' thread. You find the thread where I've advocated Socialism, statism or bigger government, and I'll give you a balloon.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 17:27
The GOP is very much in decline at the moment. As with all things it's temporary, but a Hillary presidency would definitely hasten teh rebirth.
I love how unsettled our Republican Orgahs get after spending some time in the Toe-Tappin' thread. You find the thread where I've advocated Socialism, statism or bigger government, and I'll give you a balloon.
One has nothing to do with the other, mon ami. I just find it amusing the way you, Hillary, and so many other Democrats like to use these big scary terms like "the extreme far-right" to describe anybody that doesn't vote Democrat.
Uhm, no offense to you or Politico there Lemur, but have either of you seen the campaign ads from Giuliani, McCain or Romney lately? Since September, all 3 have been running against Hillary, not each other.
The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 17:47
The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
Take a deep breath and relax. For one thing, I don't think you support Hillary. You've made that point repeatedly, and if I remember correctly, you're an Obama man. Second, I believe the Daily-Kos reference is to a post I made in another thread. How about we keep our discussions distinct? Finally, I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but terms like 'extreme far-right' and 'very far-right' get as thrown around way, way, way too much. According to its popular usage among Democrats, I am the extreme far-right (a characterization I take great umbrage with). Now, I will grant you, there is an exact parallel on the Right, calling everyone a liberal socialist. I don't agree with that either. I see a vast amount of daylight between a Dennis Kucinich and a Bill Richardson (whom I was actually considering this fall).
As for the point of your post and link, my point in my reply post (with the exception of the post script) was that you seem to be heralding an event that I have seen for some time. Hell, didn't Sasaki post that bit in 2006 about 'vote for Democrats this fall, and Al Queda would be invading the U.S. by the summer of 2009'? Running against boogeymen is a tactic that seems to go on ad nauseum. Sadly, it's not 'starting' right now as you suggest. I can send you RNC fundraising letters I've received over the past year that talked all about the need to support local Republican candidates to check Hillary's march to power.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 17:53
The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
You aren't.
And I agree about the Hilldabeast polarizing politics to a point of massive reactionary swelling. I will be using that rational if she wins, but it is not a reason to wish her to office anymore than christians should wish for hell on earth in the end times... so that they can go to heaven. Dread it, but if it happens look on the bright side.
Lets hope that doesn't happen.
(this statement was paid for by friends of Mitt Romney)
If I remember correctly, you're an Obama man.
Not exactly ... (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1768537&postcount=69)
I take your point about how Hillary has been used for boogeyman purposes for years. To my knowledge, though, this is the first use of her in a TV spot for the 2008 congressional ... oh, nevermind. I guess it's not very interesting, although I thought it was at the time.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 17:57
If I remember correctly, you're an Obama man.
He voted McCain in this poll.
This is extremely encouraging (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900968.html): Huckabee, Paul and McCain are now all on record as unequivocally opposing torture as policy. Yes, that includes "enhanced interrogation methods," to use the Orwellian euphemism of the day.
Mike Huckabee told reporters that waterboarding is torture and that "torture should not be the policy of the United States of America." Although interrogations of enemy detainees should be "thorough," Mr. Huckabee said, "when we go to the point of violating our own moral code, then instead of advancing our country, its safety and our security, we in fact jeopardize it." [...]
"My friends, this is what America is all about," Mr. McCain said. "This is a defining issue and clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America."
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 18:02
Not exactly ... (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1768537&postcount=69)
I take your point about how Hillary has been used for boogeyman purposes for years. To my knowledge, though, this is the first use of her in a TV spot for the 2008 congressional ... oh, nevermind. I guess it's not very interesting, although I thought it was at the time.
My humble apologies, but I was close. :bow: And yes, you're right, it's probably the first 2008 congressional ad to invoke the evil of Hillary, but probably because it's one of the first congressional ads for 2008 to run. :laugh4:
Seriously, I can understand the Rush Limbaugh's of the world making hay off the evils of Hillary. As an entertainer that panders to a segment of the Republican population that reacts to it, it makes sense. But I find it distasteful and disconcerting that McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have each spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to run political ads to do it. Here's an idea... talk about YOU!!! :help:
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 18:12
This is extremely encouraging (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900968.html): Huckabee, Paul and McCain are now all on record as unequivocally opposing torture as policy. Yes, that includes "enhanced interrogation methods," to use the Orwellian euphemism of the day.
Mike Huckabee told reporters that waterboarding is torture and that "torture should not be the policy of the United States of America." Although interrogations of enemy detainees should be "thorough," Mr. Huckabee said, "when we go to the point of violating our own moral code, then instead of advancing our country, its safety and our security, we in fact jeopardize it." [...]
"My friends, this is what America is all about," Mr. McCain said. "This is a defining issue and clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America."
I might agree that the government should officially never put anyone in the criminal system to death. That should be for the states to decide. The Feds are the last leg of appeals and if anything went to that level due to questions in procedure, the death penalty's legitimacy is in question in that instance.
I think the Death penalty is a hindrance for justice in some courts. Juries may be reluctant to put a "guilty" verdict in the hands of the judge because he may condemn the accused to death. This may, in their minds, up the ante and reduce chances for a solid conviction.
Life without the possibility of parole is more of an intense punishment anyway and modern prisons are pretty airtight. Possibly, states could reserve the death penalty only for the most heinous multiple murderers who showed signs of extreme mental prowess in overcoming obstacles.
I am no expert, just some ideas.
I am not an expert on this
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 18:16
Way off topic, Tuff, but they're only airtight with regards to unplanned departures. The current parole system is entirely too lax and lenient, IMHO. That being said, it shouldn't impact a discussion of the death penalty, it's either morally acceptable for the state to execute somebody, or it isn't (my vote would be no).
And I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this one, but I'd really like to see an 'acceptable' vs. 'unacceptable' list that gets down to brass tacks before we go signing off on limiting the government's ability to interrogate a prisoner. To some, having 1-ply toilet paper is considered torture.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 18:16
My humble apologies, but I was close. :bow: And yes, you're right, it's probably the first 2008 congressional ad to invoke the evil of Hillary, but probably because it's one of the first congressional ads for 2008 to run. :laugh4:
Seriously, I can understand the Rush Limbaugh's of the world making hay off the evils of Hillary. As an entertainer that panders to a segment of the Republican population that reacts to it, it makes sense. But I find it distasteful and disconcerting that McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have each spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to run political ads to do it. Here's an idea... talk about YOU!!! :help:
Also, I think hostility toward the Republicans in general is understandable. People are very sore with them right now. As a rather right leaning voter, I feel betrayed by the Republican led congress and Republican President getting very little done. I feel as though pro-life issues and smaller government were used as props to get elected.
I feel like bashing some Republicans often.
(oh crap, I read torture as death penalty. talk about subconscious. What an idiot. I think I'm going retarded. Today I read a phone number's last digits 0800. I copied them as 8126)
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 18:24
Oh believe me, nobody could make arguments against the Republican establishment than I can right now. As a fiscal conservative, I'm totally disgusted and generally mistrustful based on how the past 7 years have gone. Ted Stevens should have been thrown out of the caucus, it's not like it would cost us a majority.... But I'd like to see a little more anger about the things they really have done wrong. In many ways, it proves my point... hit the mute button for a second... just based on voting records and spending, can you tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican congress or White House?
As a fiscal conservative, I'm totally disgusted and generally mistrustful based on how the past 7 years have gone.
Complete and utter agreement. That's why I'm hoping for another divided government. I guess there's no guarantee that will result in a slowdown of government pork and largesse, but it's the best hope we've got.
That said, I'm wide open to any other suggestions on how we can tamp down our government's endless appetite for power and money.
Louis VI the Fat
12-10-2007, 18:38
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_po/clinton_obama_religion) for Obama smear emails.Well, whatdya know.TWO grassroots volunteers asked to resign.
:sleeping:
Wake me up when the swiftboating begins.
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7282.html). If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.This will happen with all Dem candidates. The only difference between Hillary and the others is that Hillary has been a high-profile, leading candidate since the beginning. The others, at least the one eventual nominee, merely have some catching up to do. By November '08 half of America will have become convinced the Rep candidate is Adolf Hitler and the other half that the Dem candidate is Satan.
It's the same drill over and over again. Everybody already knows what's going to happen. The Rep candidate will be demonised as being 'evil, big business puppet, close-mided, hick, hateful'. The Dem candidate will be attacked for being 'amoral, big spender, flip-flop, questionable ethics, slick'.
As an aside: If you are so worried about polarisation, then don't fall for it. You are a declared independent. Why repeat the partisan hatred and smear campaigns that make the American political landscape so vile and polarised? Sometimes you are great at exposing the hypocrisy of either camp. At other times, you are dangerously close to just repeating the bile of either.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 18:38
Complete and utter agreement. That's why I'm hoping for another divided government. I guess there's no guarantee that will result in a slowdown of government pork and largesse, but it's the best hope we've got.
That said, I'm wide open to any other suggestions on how we can tamp down our government's endless appetite for power and money.
I think a big start would be to stop paying Congressmen a salary. They didn't receive one in the early days (they were compensated for expenses). This would help to eliminate the professional politician, which is where a lot of this crap comes from.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 19:04
I think a big start would be to stop paying Congressmen a salary. They didn't receive one in the early days (they were compensated for expenses). This would help to eliminate the professional politician, which is where a lot of this crap comes from.
I don't know about that.
But, if you feel that way - Vote Romney. He refused his salary as Governor of Mass.
The Rep candidate will be demonised as being 'evil, big business puppet, close-mided, hick, hateful'. The Dem candidate will be attacked for being 'amoral, big spender, flip-flop, questionable ethics, slick'.
It's gonna be worse than that. I hear dead philosophers are now sponsoring attack ads, too. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI&)
This one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPRnsgFxOU&NR=1) cracks me up, too.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 15:21
It's gonna be worse than that. I hear dead philosophers are now sponsoring attack ads, too. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI&)
This one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPRnsgFxOU&NR=1) cracks me up, too.
Funny.
I like the Jefferson one better
seireikhaan
12-11-2007, 17:23
But, if you feel that way - Vote Romney. He refused his salary as Governor of Mass.
As nice as that is, I still won't even consider voting Mitt. I mean, I've heard of flip-flopping before, but this guy's ridiculous. Did you see those two links I posted earlier? I'd trust GWB to follow his word more than Mitt, and that's saying something. Although, to be fair, Mitt at least isn't completely incompetent like Bush.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 17:30
As nice as that is, I still won't even consider voting Mitt. I mean, I've heard of flip-flopping before, but this guy's ridiculous. Did you see those two links I posted earlier? I'd trust GWB to follow his word more than Mitt, and that's saying something. Although, to be fair, Mitt at least isn't completely incompetent like Bush.
That's fair. I don't mind flip-floppers. Who wants people to sit in office and think that they know better than their own constituents (Clinton, McCain, Giuliani). That's what this system is based on - REPRESENTATION. If his ethics are in question that is one thing, but to condemn a person for changing their mind based on personal or constituent opinion is another.
I didn't care when they called Kerry a flip-flopper. I didn't like him because of his constituency and his weak/unconvincing way of changing his opinion. If he flip-flopped in my direction that would have been great.
Mitt has strong opinions, but in the interest of representative government, he knows when to shut up and when to speak up. Find me a successful person in life who doesn't do that. This has nothing to do with ethics - of which I believe Romney has plenty.
Please send me the links in PM
seireikhaan
12-11-2007, 17:57
Sent.
Kralizec
12-11-2007, 20:27
I'm not so sure about Giuliani anymore...
If I could vote again, I think I'd pick Nietzsche.
Louis VI the Fat
12-11-2007, 20:59
If I could vote again, I think I'd pick Nietzsche.In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 21:07
I'm not so sure about Giuliani anymore...
Look more closely at Romney. It is hard to condemn his message and he has a powerful personality.
seireikhaan
12-12-2007, 03:52
Look more closely at Romney. It is hard to condemn his message and he has a powerful personality.
Wanna bet?~;)
ICantSpellDawg
12-12-2007, 14:26
Wanna bet?~;)
I watched the videos. I don't see anything wrong with him.
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
Tuff is right in this regard. Mass is a unique state, I know I live here. Yes its liberal and there are also socialist leanings here. To Mitt's credit he had a fairly successful govenorship in the sense he did sell some of his ideas to the public.
The legislature here is overwhelmingly democrat he had one hand tied behind his back going in. That kind of expirence might be useful considering where the conservatives stack up in 08. How many senators are retiring?
Mitt's the only guy in the republican field who has dealt with and worked with a hostile majority in the legislature. He wouldnt be my first choice, because he is a CEO and a good one, but CEO's rarely succeed in a democratic situation.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2007, 14:42
TSM:
Nice post.
Odie:
Good point about the CEO thingee.
Kralizec
12-12-2007, 15:11
In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)
Exactly. One of the reasons that I originally picked Giuliani is that he doesn't go out of his way to appear annoyingly pious like some of the other candidates. Vote Nietzsche, the embodiment of der Amerikanische Übermensch :yes:
__________________
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Nietzsche187a.jpg/225px-Nietzsche187a.jpg
"I'm Friedrich Nietzsche and I approve of this post"
seireikhaan
12-12-2007, 22:53
I watched the videos. I don't see anything wrong with him.
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
No, he didn't, but I believe a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that it would have encountered a lot of opposition, as you stated, so it would have been foolhardy to even try such a move in Mass.
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
I'm not saying that a candidate has to be unchangeable in their persona. I'm merely saying that he's a complete and utter hypocrite to go on a commercial saying "Republicans should act like Republicans, so vote Mitt." Also that I don't trust much of what he says, on account of the fact that he very well could just be saying it to try and get himself elected, as he seems to have done in Mass. So frankly, I'm not sure that I trust him on much of anything he says.
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
Now this I do very much agree on with you. As for many people believing its murder, well, there are a lot who say its a woman's right as well. A further complication of the matter(at least in my opinion) is that should we forbid abortion, the wealthy will still be able to fly to Mexico or Canada and have an abortion done there, completely legal. If we could convince Mexico and Canada to put laws forth banning abortion, and enforcing them, then I would have less of a problem.
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
Your welcome. It is quite apparent that I will be unable to convince you otherwise of Mitt Romney. BTW, I'm afraid I lack the intelligence or wisdom to "drop the ball" on anyone regarding the coming political election. I can voice my opinion, but unlike others, I'm afraid that I generally lack the supreme political insight to figure it all out before everyone else. Perhaps maybe because this will be my first time caucusing/voting? Ah well.
Disclaimer: I also have a beef against Romney because I get the eery feeling that if he gets elected, I'm gonna end up being drafted.(be it a logical fear or not)
ICantSpellDawg
12-13-2007, 04:15
Your welcome. It is quite apparent that I will be unable to convince you otherwise of Mitt Romney. BTW, I'm afraid I lack the intelligence or wisdom to "drop the ball" on anyone regarding the coming political election. I can voice my opinion, but unlike others, I'm afraid that I generally lack the supreme political insight to figure it all out before everyone else. Perhaps maybe because this will be my first time caucusing/voting? Ah well.
Disclaimer: I also have a beef against Romney because I get the eery feeling that if he gets elected, I'm gonna end up being drafted.(be it a logical fear or not)
A pro-life stance is not the litmus test required to call yourself a republican. I don't believe it should be the litmus test in either party. In the democratic party, a pro-life stance has traditionally barred you from higher office or speech giving (I have seen this change as of late - Murtha, Reid, Casey, etc.)
I believe in overturning Roe v Wade. This will not affect current laws in a number of states (HI, NY, CA, MA...), but other states will have the opportunity to draft legislation that accurately describes the will of citizens with regards to the issue. I don't see how this could be a bad thing - I am content on eliminating as many of what I believe I accurately describe as infanticides as possible. I will, as a New Yorker, continue to lobby against abortion in my State, but in a representative republic, that is all I will be able to do as far as I can see.
Anyway, regarding what makes a Republican - I think it favors businesses, the private sector and self-reliance (individuals and States). This (tends to) include fewer taxes, fewer government bureaucracies and a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. All of those stances have been in question at one point or another within the party, but I believe that they generally apply. (all of that is arguable - again, I'm speaking in generalities.)
Anyway, the pro-life argument was picked up by the GOP because NARAL and Planned Parenthood have pretty much bought up the democratic party under the guise of "womens rights" and "choice". This is a shame - I'd love to have some options in an election.
BTW - You're a smart guy, you have the insight.
seireikhaan
12-13-2007, 04:50
Well, what you just described as 'republicans' is certainly what the idea of republicans is supposed to be. Hasn't really been that for the last oh, 8 years at least. Anyways, one more commercial of Romney's that just sickens me.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nOPp9K1JUCs&feature=related
Increasing the military by AT LEAST 100,000? Either he's nuts, or he's just lying his arse off to try and get approval from the republicans with more, shall we say, militant meanings. Also, are Republicans supposed to downsize the miiltary as a part of downsizing government as a whole? Or is the military considered a different entity in itself?
Also, the 'monitoring Al Qaeda calls into America' bit concerns me a bit. Sure, it sounds nice that Al Qaeda won't be calling us. But what about just every day, average joes who're calling their family from a different country and are being monitored by the government just because their last name is "Ali"? Not to mention that by doing so, we're monitoring our own citizens, which I believe to be a violation of of our rights. If we're to base our assumptions of him based on what we hear, which isn't even itself neccessarily true, then Romney will only end up feuling the Islamophobia in our country even more. That is rather counter-productive towards any efforts in establishing good relations with the non-American Islamic community, in addition to giving radicals more ammo with which to recruit followers to said organizations. Also, he seems to be following in GWB's footpaths regarding ignoring the inherent hypocrisy in buying oil from the Saudi Monarchy, which has some of the strictest and most unjust interpretations of law in the world, as well as supporting a military dictator in Pakistan, while condemning Iran and others for what are similar offenses. He might have some agreeable economic policies; however, I cannot support his foreign policy, or the invasion of rights, if he actually does what he says(which as I said, isn't a safe bet). And as for if he does do the opposite of what he says? Well then we can safely know that he's a lying hypocrite who does whatever he can to gain power, not a trait I like having in a Presidency which already is overstepping its bounds of power.
ICantSpellDawg
12-14-2007, 16:25
I hope this is accurate. I have my fingers crossed.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/FRONTPAGE/712140350
Obama edges Clinton in poll
Romney well ahead in 'Monitor' survey
By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff
December 14. 2007 12:41AM
Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results - which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton - mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton's once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.
The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren't registered with either political party. Much of Obama's backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton's support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.
"The more undeclared voters that decide to vote in the Democratic primary, the better chance Obama wins," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, the Maryland-based nonpartisan polling firm that conducted the poll for the Monitor on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. "What Hillary Clinton has to hope is that more of the established Democrats come out to vote."
If the Democratic race is in flux, the Republican race in New Hampshire has remained constant in recent months, with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continuing to hold a double-digit lead over his nearest competitors.
According to the poll, Romney would win 31 percent of the vote if the Republican primary were held today. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, would earn 18 percent and 17 percent respectively. Although Mike Huckabee is leading some Iowa polls, his campaign hasn't surged in New Hampshire: 9 percent of voters back the former Arkansas governor.
The figures were similar in July, when a Monitor poll showed that 27 percent of those surveyed backed Romney, 20 percent picked Giuliani and 16 percent chose McCain.
Informal interviews with voters yesterday in Concord turned up several leaning toward Obama. Those voters described Obama in much the same way the Illinois senator describes himself: as an agent of change, a new face in Washington.
Charles Shipman, who is registered as undeclared, said that he would support Clinton should she win the Democratic nomination. But Obama "offers sort of a fresh start, more of a clean slate, less baggage," said Shipman of Manchester.
Of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed for the Monitor poll, 37 percent aren't registered with a political party. When it came to those undeclared voters, Obama trounced his opponents: 40 percent of undeclared voters likely to vote in the Democratic primary backed Obama, compared with 23 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for former North Carolina senator John Edwards.
Clinton, in contrast, won the support of more registered Democrats: 36 percent said they'd vote for Clinton, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 21 percent for Edwards.
For Rhonda Ashley of Contoocook, Obama will be the first Democrat she's supported in a recent presidential election. In 2000, she backed McCain in the state's primary; in 2004, she voted Republican. Obama "has an enthusiasm that I don't see in any of the other candidates," Ashley said. As for Clinton, "I feel like Hillary will go wherever the polls tell her to go."
Apart from undeclared voters, Obama now draws considerable support from women. Of the female, likely Democratic voters surveyed, 34 percent say they'd choose Obama, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Female voters have widely been considered a key demographic for Clinton, the former first lady and U.S. senator from New York.
"That's where the biggest gains have been made for Obama," Ali said. "That gender gap - right now, he's removed it."
But if some voters have settled on a candidate, others voiced indecision.
Rich Eichhorn of Hopkinton has yet to decide which primary to vote in. "I can go either way; it's less about left or right," said Eichhorn, who voted for McCain in 2000. "We need somebody who can lead people."
And Marilyn Wyzga, a registered Democrat from Hillsboro, is considering voting for Edwards or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. She likes Edwards's "honest and direct approach," but she is also drawn to Richardson's "experience."
Obama, Clinton and Edwards were the only Democratic candidates to win double-digit support in the poll - 32 percent of likely Democratic primary voters surveyed backed Obama, 31 percent chose Clinton, and 18 percent went with Edwards. Richardson followed with 8 percent support. Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd all placed in the low single digits.
The results of the Monitor poll were similar to those of a University of New Hampshire poll released earlier this week. That survey showed Clinton leading Obama by just one percentage point, well within the margin of error.
In the Monitor's July poll, 33 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed chose Clinton, while 25 percent picked Obama. Edwards won 15 percent of the vote in that poll, while Richardson took 7 percent.
On the Republican side, several voters said that they're continuing to assess the candidates.
Gary Nylen of Bow backed McCain in 2000. Now, he said, "I don't know whether I'll vote for him, Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee." Nylen, who considers immigration and national security the most important issues, cited aspects of each candidate that he found appealing, including Giuliani's leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Nylen is frustrated by political promises that he said were unlikely to come to fruition. "Don't give us rhetoric," Nylen said. "Give us facts.
"I can't make a decision right now, because I don't feel comfortable," he said.
On the Republican side, 13 percent of voters surveyed said they remained undecided about whom to vote for, compared with 5 percent among the likely Democratic voters.
Bill Anderson, who is registered as undeclared, would happily take characteristics of several Republican candidates and roll them into one politician: Huckabee's social conservatism, McCain's emphasis on national security, Romney's managerial abilities.
But without that option, "I'll take any one of them over the inexperienced guy and the person I don't trust," said Anderson, of Weare, referring to Obama and Clinton. Giuliani's stance on abortion - the former mayor has supported abortion rights - led Anderson to rule him out.
It's unclear how many undeclared voters plan to participate in the Republican primary. Of the likely Republican voters surveyed, 19 percent are undeclared. In 2000, support from undeclared voters helped McCain widen his lead over George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.
Research 2000 used randomly generated telephone numbers to interview 600 likely voters. Those interviewed - 186 Democrats (31 percent), 180 Republicans (30 percent) and 234 voters who identified themselves as independents (39 percent) - reflect voter registration numbers. The interviews included 288 men and 312 women. The poll has a four percentage point margin of error, although that figure is higher for subgroups within the poll.
Looking ahead to the general election, the three highest-polling Democrats beat each of the highest-polling Republicans.
In those head-to-head match-ups, Obama fared best among the Democrats, beating Romney, Giuliani and McCain by the largest margins. Although Edwards also wins those match-ups, several of those contests are a statistical dead heat. Clinton lies between Obama and Edwards, leading each of the three Republicans by at least six percentage points.
Of the Republicans, Romney looks to face the toughest general election battles, according to the poll. Obama leads Romney by 12 points, with Clinton and Edwards besting Romney by eight points and five points respectively. For Giuliani and McCain, the margins are smaller.
"I think it's tough for a Republican in New Hampshire," Ali said. "It's the Democrats' state to lose."
------ End of article
By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff
This article is: 0 days old.
ICantSpellDawg
12-14-2007, 16:40
also: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/12/13/huckacide
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2007, 17:11
also: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/12/13/huckacide
Interesting.
It would seem that Iowa and New Hampshire will thin out the second tier, but that likely results (could change, 3-4 weeks is an eternity in nomination politics) show a split between Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani while the Dems will be Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Leaves South Carolina with a lot of looming importance.
South Carolina -- the state that gave us Firm Thurm, Fort Sumter, Secession and John C. Calhoun.
Interesting indeed.
SC is also the watershed for Thompson and Edwards. If Edwards doesn't have 2 2nd places or 1 first after SC, he'd done. If Thompson doesn't appear near the head of the list there, so is he.
Good to know that we'll have a nominee by mid-February. We need to get plenty of mud ready for a long summer.
Louis VI the Fat
12-14-2007, 17:16
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?They know that Mcain died way back in 2005, at the age of 93. :book:
He's good, McCain, but his moment has passed. He should've been the candidate in 2000.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2007, 17:17
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
They've decided that he's a Veep waiting to happen -- but no more.
McCain doesn't look as young as he did -- so he doesn't film as well. This matters on TV -- they want people to watch. McCain even wears sweaters under a sport jacket sometimes....:shame:
Visual image is all to the one-eyed god, but one eye has trouble with depth perception.
McCain doesn't attack the sacred cows of the Reaganite wing or the Evangelicals as he did before -- which made good copy (and fit with many of their unexpressed personal peeves).
McCain just doesn't "do it" for them, so without an outright winin one of the first three, he's on the media's second tier [as in to be ushered out].
Interesting.
It would seem that Iowa and New Hampshire will thin out the second tier, but that likely results (could change, 3-4 weeks is an eternity in nomination politics) show a split between Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani while the Dems will be Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Leaves South Carolina with a lot of looming importance.
South Carolina -- the state that gave us Firm Thurm, Fort Sumter, Secession and John C. Calhoun.
Interesting indeed.
SC is also the watershed for Thompson and Edwards. If Edwards doesn't have 2 2nd places or 1 first after SC, he'd done. If Thompson doesn't appear near the head of the list there, so is he.
Good to know that we'll have a nominee by mid-February. We need to get plenty of mud ready for a long summer.
Huckabee is winning pretty much every single poll I've seen for SC right now. He needs to just hurry up and go away. Outside of his social conservatism, he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican- I can't believe his 'Mister Niceguy' image has carried him so far. :shrug:
Don't get me wrong, I think Huckabee is a nice guy, but that in itself is no reason for him to be president.
ICantSpellDawg
12-14-2007, 17:45
Huckabee is winning pretty much every single poll I've seen for SC right now. He needs to just hurry up and go away. Outside of his social conservatism, he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican- I can't believe his 'Mister Niceguy' image has carried him so far. :shrug:
Don't get me wrong, I think Huckabee is a nice guy, but that in itself is no reason for him to be president.
Absolutely. I would rather have Giuliani than Huckabee in office any day. Fortunately, Giuliani's good economic sense and Huckabee's social sense are preserved in the eminently electable bridge builder - Mitt, so hopefully I won't have to make that choice.
Well, if the polls are anything at all to consider, it's looking like Huckbama (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/12/14/news/latest_news/6ed995c7ca21cbe5862573b1005dc02e.txt) in Iowa.
Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee hold 9-point leads in Iowa with less than three weeks to go before the Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new poll conducted for Lee Enterprises newspapers. [...]
The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.
Meanwhile, Hillary seems to be flailing (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2007/12/14/the-freakshow-comes-to-life.aspx):
After forcing Billy Shaheen out of her campaign, Hillary has now pivoted to a "no surprises" argument which at least seems to spring directly from the Obama-cocaine talk--and is certain to keep that talk alive. This also represents an important new campaign theme for Hillary. For most of the past year her candidacy has been premised on her experience. Now she's making electability a central issue.
Intuitively, such a pivot might seem dangerous, given that Hillary's divisiveness has always troubled Democrats. But this week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters consider her the most electable candidate--a fact the campaign flagged in a recent conference call. Maybe Team Hillary now sees electability as their path back towards the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama, it could be an ugly one.
Privateerkev
12-14-2007, 20:58
I'm writing in "Gah".
I don't like any of them. I hope none of them become our next president. But, due to the two party lock on this system, one of them probably will.
Lets see, I get to choose from a group of pro-capitalists and a group of pro-capitalists.
The more to the left I have moved politically, the more similar the two parties seem.
I'm tired of being forced to choose between party 1.A and party 1.B :no:
May I inquire what you want then? Communism? ~;)
Privateerkev
12-15-2007, 03:00
May I inquire what you want then? Communism? ~;)
A left-wing utopia would be slightly more in line with what I want. And to keep it "on-topic", I am not confident that any of the candidates in either party could deliver a left-wing utopia. I remain hopeful that someone will though...
^_^
A left-wing utopia would be slightly more in line with what I want. And to keep it "on-topic", I am not confident that any of the candidates in either party could deliver a left-wing utopia. I remain hopeful that someone will though...
^_^
Keep dreaming. That's one think I'm glad that's one think the candidates agree on.
John McCain picked up a few endorsements (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3627081.shtml) recently. Don't know if it will make any difference at all, but it's nice to see others clueing in to why he would make a good President.
This morning he was endorsed by his favorite former Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which comes on the heels of back to back-to-back endorsements from 3 newspapers over the weekend: The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald.
seireikhaan
12-19-2007, 20:15
John McCain picked up a few endorsements (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3627081.shtml) recently. Don't know if it will make any difference at all, but it's nice to see others clueing in to why he would make a good President.
This morning he was endorsed by his favorite former Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which comes on the heels of back to back-to-back endorsements from 3 newspapers over the weekend: The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald.
If the Des Moines Register is supporting him, that's not neccesarily a positive thing. Nearly everyone who reads it knows the newspaper's a piece of junk more often than not, but they don't have any competition anymore, so we're kinda stuck with them.
How dare Democrats support Obama? He's not angry or partisan enough! (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/krugman_speaks_about_his_battle_with_obama_campaign.php)
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
This is a bad thing?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-20-2007, 05:27
How dare Democrats support Obama? He's not angry or partisan enough! (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/krugman_speaks_about_his_battle_with_obama_campaign.php)
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
This is a bad thing?
Intellectually, no -- of course not. In terms of being in step with one's party -- perhaps. This is the albatross that has kept the Dems from beating a GOP nominee who was anything but a sure thing in either the 2k or '04elections.
The democrat fringe is proportionately larger than the republican cadre of whack jobs and, to those annointed purists, any Dem who is not ready to push hard NOW for an eco-socialist future is part of the problem. They make Hannity seem "nuanced" by comparison....:dizzy:
Seamus, I'd be interested to see if anyone has made a serious attempt to quantify the kook fringe of either party. That would be an interesting exercise.
Ye gods, there's even better stuff further down in the interview. Krugman really hates the idea of anybody thinking about compromise or bipartisanship. How dare they!
When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."
To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.
A Democrat talk about dealing with entitlements? Egads! Gadzooks! Martha, quickly, dial 911!
(Footnote: I kinda suspect that the only President who can make headway on entitlements will be a Dem. In much the same way that only confirmed cold warrior Nixon could go to China, ya know? Or in the way that only a liberal heartthrob like Bill Clinton could make meaningful changes to Welfare ...)
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2007, 16:20
I'm probably gonna open another thread right before the election to see how opinions in the org have changed. What do you think? Redundant?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-20-2007, 22:00
(Footnote: I kinda suspect that the only President who can make headway on entitlements will be a Dem. In much the same way that only confirmed cold warrior Nixon could go to China, ya know? Or in the way that only a liberal heartthrob like Bill Clinton could make meaningful changes to Welfare ...)
Now THAT, my proto-simian compadre, is an interesting take. My conservative-oriented self has always defaulted to the idea that it would take a Reaganesque leader who established the roll-back of entitlements as his mission in the same dedicated fashion that Reagan set out to end the Cold War. My thoughts on Nixon and China are mixed, but I've always had a deep respect for Nixon's intellect, so your analogy touches a chord. Maybe you can develop it some time.
Meanwhile, it's beginnig to look more and more like a crap-shoot for the big 3 or 4 of both parties. Hard to say who'll emerge on top when IA, NH, & SC are on the books -- for either side! We're in for a horse race, at least at the outset.
Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/20/tancredos-wife-slim-chance-of-staying-in-race/
DES MOINES, Iowa - Rep. Tom Tancredo officially bowed out of the race for the White House today, declaring a moral victory despite never escaping the bottom rungs of the polls.
At an afternoon news conference in Des Moines, the Colorado congressman also endorsed Mitt Romney, saying he was satisfied the former Massachusetts governor is well-suited to drive many of the same immigration reforms that Tancredo has been pushing on the campaign trail.
Tancredo called Romney "the best hope for our cause."
Louis VI the Fat
12-21-2007, 00:49
Time's (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1690170_1690786,00.html) top 10 Campaign Gaffes.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2007, 01:45
Time's (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1690170_1690786,00.html) top 10 Campaign Gaffes.
The Times is absurd. They could attack every leading candidate twice except Hillary - the biggest joke in the race and Huckabee - who nobody on the left wants to stop from butchering the chances of the GOP keeping the white house.
I hate Fox, I don't trust (but I like) drudge, and I think CNN is out of touch but more moderate. TIMES is a fraud when it says it has no allegiances to partisan issues.
GeneralHankerchief
12-21-2007, 01:49
Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.
I did, but it was a joke (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1767609&postcount=31).
Anyway, since my opinion on the field hasn't changed one iota since last month, I choose Chris Dodd next. Why not?
LittleGrizzly
12-21-2007, 02:14
from the little i now on them i can't decide between clinton and obama
Seamus Fermanagh
12-21-2007, 04:40
Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....
Both O and P are extremely popular with the under-40 set. The Org skews heavily toward that demo for obvious reasons. Iowa, on the other hand, may well be decided by the over-60 bunch.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2007, 06:05
Right. The org skews heavily to the under 30 international set. I was just interested in what everyone thinks, since we are still masters of the universe for the time being.
Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....
If I could only be so lucky.
Ron Paul would win in a landslide.
DukeofSerbia
12-21-2007, 13:08
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-21-2007, 13:31
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.
DukeofSerbia
12-21-2007, 16:59
This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.
Thank you. ~;)
US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, Dr. Ron Paul, March 24, 1999
"As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail. Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty."
"Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own."
Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, Dr. Ron Paul, March 29, 1999
"This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends."
"Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years."
Crisis in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 14, 1999
"It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state."
"There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not (a) reason for us to go to war."
The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, March 13, 2000
"David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of '100,000 or more' was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim ... Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally."
"Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations, as well as from our own government ... The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy."
And the latest:
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
Pat Buchanan (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article59313.html) does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...
So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.
Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.
Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.
And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.
Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2007, 20:54
Pat Buchanan (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article59313.html) does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...
So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.
Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.
Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.
And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.
Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.
I was gonna post that. I think it's pretty adept. For some reason the national polls don't favor Mitt against the democrats. Why do you think that is, Lemur?
I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
I continue to be amazed at how much some Democrats despise Obama for talking about working with Republicans. I mean, they really hate it. Obama mentioned that he would consider putting Republicans in his cabinet (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-says-hed.html), and the reactions are overwhelmingly negative. Example: "Here we go—the good old bipartisan garbage." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/20/obama-says-hed-possibly-appoint-arnold-to-his-cabinet/)
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).
-edit-
Here's the latest Zogby polls (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404). I'm not sure they mean much of anything a year out from the general election. Nobody's had a chance to slime, slander, Swiftboat or generally malign their opponents yet.
Louis VI the Fat
12-21-2007, 23:16
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. Obama certainly wins cool points with me for this.
I don't want to bore anyone with Sarkozy in this thread, but the above sounds too frustratingly similar to not suggest a comparison (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,491325,00.html) to the case in France. The problems are the same - partisan tribalism and the stranglehold of the 1968 generation. The solution possibly too. Sarkozy did exactly what Obama is trying to do: overcoming '1968' partisanship for the precise reason of a radical breach with existing politics. It is quite succesful and refreshing.
Sarkozy's "policy of openness," whereby the top man in Elysee Palace wants to bring about a radical all-around renewal of the nation.
In order to achieve this, Sarkozy put together a diverse, 33-person cabinet: Almost a fifth of the ministers come from the left, and one-third are women. Sarkozy gave prominent Socialist Party member Bernard Kouchner the position of foreign minister (more...) and he managed to woo five other left-wing politicians into his cabinet by offering them high-ranking positions, while a politician from the political center was put in charge of the Defense Ministry.
Giving high-powered women prestigious positions such as those of interior minister, economics minister and education minister gives Sarkozy the aura of being a pioneer for equal opportunities.
A "policy of openness"? What the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung characterized as a "pretty risky personalization of his style of government" is a calculated strategy used by Sarkozy to secure power for himself. The non-partisan distribution of offices to members of a Socialist Party without significant power in parliament provided the head of state with almost unlimited authority -- one who openly describes himself as "a president who wants to govern."
I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
Good to know.
I cast my absentee ballot today at my local town hall.
:balloon2:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-22-2007, 04:32
Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
We need a smiley that's pointing at it's nose for this comment. You have, I believe, brought down the whole thing to one question. Regrettably, the answer is a Yes.
The partisans want to win the fight, conquer the city and hit exterminate. Enslaving for long-term gain might be barely acceptable, but simply living and let living will not do. Ideological blood must be shed.
The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).
The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).
Civil War, 2030 style?
:beam:
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2007, 09:15
I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
George Romney had a very admirable civil rights record and Martin Luther King knew him. Both of the Romney brothers remember their father saying something about marching with King. I think that they may have misunderstood their father.
I don't fully understand what this row is about.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2007, 09:17
A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:
What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?
Which policy plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney) do you dislike?
Just curious.
Banquo's Ghost
12-22-2007, 10:31
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).
Were I able to contribute, this is the ticket that would most appeal to me. Both candidates appear to have a good level of personal integrity, and Sen. McCain appeals to me as the kind of conservative I understand (and would consider myself to be, but then we have such different definitions across the pond). I think he has made some mistakes (I'm not at all fond of what I read about his campaign finance reforms) but he thinks as though he cares about the United States and her people.
Sen. Obama's ideals excite me but I feel he would benefit hugely from serving as vice-president to someone like Sen. McCain. It might temper some of his more extreme thoughts whilst providing energy and innovation to a conservative administration. He may well then go on to make one of the finest presidents.
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and co-operation?
Alas, this seems to be the pattern across Western democracies. As Louis notes, attempts have been made in some places, but it is vanishing as an aspiration. We are guilty of such tribalism even here in this microcosm of the Backroom.
Perchance it is the end result of too much comfort. Despite our governments inventing ever so more creative ways to terrify us into partisanship, the west feels remarkably safe and its people can indulge in yah-boo politics knowing that not much will change. I would characterise the above suggestion as a government of national unity, and they seem long gone.
seireikhaan
12-22-2007, 18:36
What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?
Which policy plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney) do you dislike?
Just curious.
Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.
Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.
I'm pretty much you with you here.
We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.
Mitt would be like George W Lite.
ICantSpellDawg
12-23-2007, 06:11
I'm pretty much you with you here.
We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.
Mitt would be like George W Lite.
only an absolute genius.
A remarkably unfriendly editorial (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301) about Romney from NH.
Romney should not be the next president
If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.
Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.
Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.
If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.
There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.
The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.
There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.
People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.
In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.
When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.
Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.
ICantSpellDawg
12-23-2007, 20:04
Remarkably unfriendly. It is just a summarization of all of the negative press he's had so far. Nothing biting or deep. PLUS, NH is remarkably friendly to Romney in general.
Interesting bit of polling data: Clinton and Romney have the highest unfavorable ratings (http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/12/22/rasmussen-romney-as-unelectable-as-clinton/) nationally. McCain and Obama have the lowest.
woad&fangs
12-24-2007, 01:25
I just recently learned that only 6% of Iowans actually go to the caucases. I assume that the number is roughly the same in New Hampshire and South Carolina sooooo....
You can only go to one caucas so divide that 6% in half.=3%
The winner rarely has more than 1/3 of the votes so divide by 3=1%
And once those three states are done the candidates for each party have virtually been decided.
So let me get this strait. 1% of Iowans, New Hamshirans, and South Carolines decided the democrats nominee for president and 1% decide the republican nominee for president. What the...
Our systems completely :daisy:'d up:dizzy2:
O, and then we get to the general election where we have the electoral college cuz apparently.
GeneralHankerchief
12-24-2007, 03:34
A caucus is not the same thing as a primary.
NH's big claim to fame is that they have the first "open primary" in the nation, meaning that they're the first state to actually open up the voting booths to everybody as opposed to just a certain amount of people.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-24-2007, 05:34
The primary system is lauded for its open character and avoidance of the old "smoke-filled" rooms where deals were made to nominate candidates.
Now, exactly how much "better" it is to let less than 10% of an often under-informed electorate in 3-8 states select the nominee (in practice that's what happens, the rest is follow through) as opposed to having a candidate selected by the movers and shakers in a party during a convention with representatives from all areas present and involved IS a debatable point.
ICantSpellDawg
12-24-2007, 06:43
Interesting bit of polling data: Clinton and Romney have the highest unfavorable ratings (http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/12/22/rasmussen-romney-as-unelectable-as-clinton/) nationally. McCain and Obama have the lowest.
Interesting.
check this out (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/23/america/letter.php)
Romney has the best odds of winning the election out of all of the republicans.
Some people do view him as fake. What do they think he's gonna do? turn around and start taxing the crap out of them while making abortion mandatory and marrying 5 men? What does "hes a phony" actually mean in politics? I get a creepy feeling listening to Huck speak, i think hes a populist and I don't trust his character. In fact, the more I hear from Huckabee the less I like him. If Mitt's such a phony, you'll probably get a really good first term out of him since hes busy being "phony" and trying to win his re-election.
The phony label is bogus. The guy is awesome. He lowered taxes in Mass. His record in Mass looked more like a conservative Republican who was "phony" about being a center left republican in order to become governor.
Do you really dislike him that much Lemur? I see the future of the Republican party in him.
BTW Merry Christmas to you and yours (lemurs).
I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I dislike Romney; the opposite is true. I think the guy is smart as a whip, and a proven good governor. I think he would make a pretty good President. There's a reason I ranked him as my #4 pick. I would take him by a country mile over Huckabee, Giuliani or Clinton.
You're right, the whole "fake" label is kinda nebulous and hard to fight. But the fact stands that Romney makes up fibs that are completely unnecessary. Some blogger coined the term "mitticism," which you have to admit is pretty funny, to cover statements from a candidate that sound a little too perfect, a little too scripted, and just a tad too tailored for the audience.
I have no beef with Romney. I like the guy. I just think he's gonna get shafted in the primaries. (And among the Republicans I like McCain and Paul better.)
-edit-
Bookies are giving 20-1 odds for an independent or 3rd-party President? That's just robbery, that is. Should be more like 20,000-1 odds if they're gonna be honest.
ICantSpellDawg
12-24-2007, 15:25
That's fair. My picks are:
1) Romney
2) Paul (yeah right)
3) McCain
4) Giuliani
Ron Paul is a totally different tack, but a part of me wants to have a simpler life and just be regular citizens in a regular country. If that means we have to fight major wars very infrequently as opposed to minuscule wars more frequently - so be it. Plus, he is an adamantly pro-life libertarian; "without life, the rest of the bill of rights are meaningless" or something like that.
I like Huckabee's social policies, but I think we'd all be better served if he was just a pastor - and hes speaking style creeps me out. Thompson is a fossil. Who's Hunter?
As far as democrats go, the only one I sort of like is Obama, but I hate his policies, and I would hate to see a Dem Senate, Dem House, Dem President. The only things I like about him are the facts that he would be a good role model for American Blacks and hes charming on stage. Couldn't we make him VP or a cabinet member for that? Any who, he's a long shot.
Clinton will be our next President.
So it is written on the tablet of the end times. I've been fearing this election since Billy boy's second term when I actually walked in on Hillary summoning the devil.
(Edit during the christmas break! For no reason)
Interestingly, a lot of (http://www.slate.com/id/2180939/fr/rss/) analysts are saying (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124106.html) that the Bhutto assassination benefits ... McCain. My #1 pick. And he's been doing better of late anyway. Maybe my long shot will come through?
Good essay by Peggy Noonan. Her theme? "Be reasonable." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/) Good advice, I think.
This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We'd like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it. [...]
John McCain? Yes. Remember when he was the wild man in 2000? For Republicans on the ground he was a little outré, if Republicans on the ground said "outré," as opposed to the more direct "nut job." George W. Bush, then, was the moderate, more even-toned candidate. Times change. Mr. McCain is an experienced, personally heroic, seasoned, blunt-eyed, irascible American character. He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud.
Barack Obama? Yes, I think so. He has earned the attention of the country with a classy campaign, with a disciplined and dignified staff, and with passionate supporters such as JFK hand Ted Sorensen, who has told me he sees in Obama's mind and temperament the kind of gifts Kennedy displayed during the Cuban missile crisis. Mr. Obama is thoughtful, and it would be a pleasure to have a president who is highly literate and a writer of books.
Is he experienced enough? No. He's not old enough either. Men in their 40s love drama too much. Young politicians on fire over this issue or that tend to see politics as a stage on which they can act out their greatness. And we don't need more theatrics, more comedies or tragedies. But Mr. Obama doesn't seem on fire. He seems like a calm liberal with a certain moderating ambivalence. The great plus of his candidacy: More than anyone else he turns the page. If he rises he is something new in history, good or bad, and a new era begins.
Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-29-2007, 04:45
Interestingly, a lot of (http://www.slate.com/id/2180939/fr/rss/) analysts are saying (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124106.html) that the Bhutto assassination benefits ... McCain. My #1 pick. And he's been doing better of late anyway. Maybe my long shot will come through?
Well, he clearly won't win in Iowa.
However, he's got a good track record in NH and he's now on the Radar scope in Iowa in a tie for third (more or less). Since this means he's tripled his numbers in IA since the summer, it is looking like he and Huckabee are the big gainers from the Hawkeye shin-dig.
Still have to label him the underdog, Lemur, but like the Saints and the 'Skins he can't be counted out yet.
After IA/NH, I think we'll see: Romney, Huck', McCain, Guiliani, and maybe Fred T. (who's pinning much on his showing in SC). The others will be out by then.
After SC, I have a sneaking suspicion that Thompson will be gone and it will be down to R, Mc, and G going into the first Super.
Marshal Murat
12-29-2007, 04:52
So does that make Kucinich the Dolphins?
ICantSpellDawg
12-30-2007, 01:00
Good essay by Peggy Noonan. Her theme? "Be reasonable." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/) God advice, I think.
I do like Noonan. She is on the level.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.