Iowa Caucuses '08

[GeneralHankerchief]

I picked Tancredo so that he could fulfill the Mayan prophecy regarding 2012.

Seriously though, none of them look too appealing. What a shame.

[seireikhaan]

I picked Tancredo so that he could fulfill the Mayan prophecy regarding 2012.

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]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

Yeah, what with the latest polls showing Obama doing marginally better than Hil, her mask is slipping.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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

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]

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...

[Lemur]

This sort of thing makes me happy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Ice]

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]

I disagree with labeling Hil' as "Nixon in a pantsuit."

Catchy phrasing though....


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....

[Odin]

I disagree with labeling Hil' as "Nixon in a pantsuit."

Catchy phrasing though....


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]

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.

[drone]

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.

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, . 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 ). 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]

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?

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...

I 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.

[Odin]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Odin]

[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 He is the only republican to sign it.

2. Commitment to american independence 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.

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Odin]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[drone]

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?

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?

[Odin]

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.