Politics is a Sport: Pre-Caucus Thread

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let's do this one more time!

You only have 1 Day to vote!

[Vladimir]

This is an internet forum. Ron Paul will win.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right. I just want to see how different the outcomes are from last month, if they are at all.

If I could vote for 2 the other would be Ron Paul. He reminds me of a modern day Andrew Jackson because of his madness.

[Andres]

Where is the "Gah!" option?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't vote. That is the Gah option. Or vote for someone who you think will lose.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Which one is the head of the liberal conspiracy? He/she/it gets my vote!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which one is the head of the liberal conspiracy? He/she/it gets my vote!

Clinton.

[Don Corleone]

I had to hop off the Romney bandwagon. One of the things I liked most about him was that he was playing to his own competency. But somepoint in the last 2 or 3 weeks, he started running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain here in New Hampshire. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, and it lends credence to the criticism that he's a 'say anything' candidate.

I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, mainly because he's running a campaign that all but says "Don't vote for me", but Fred's got my vote these days. I used to say anybody that wants the job should automatically be disqualified. He's as close to that as I've seen, and I like his policies for the most part. I do wish he'd consider the flat tax though.

[Odin]

I had to hop off the Romney bandwagon. One of the things I liked most about him was that he was playing to his own competency. But somepoint in the last 2 or 3 weeks, he started running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain here in New Hampshire. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, and it lends credence to the criticism that he's a 'say anything' candidate.

I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, mainly because he's running a campaign that all but says "Don't vote for me", but Fred's got my vote these days. I used to say anybody that wants the job should automatically be disqualified. He's as close to that as I've seen, and I like his policies for the most part. I do wish he'd consider the flat tax though.

To be honest Don I would have wagered you to be a McCain man myself (and I dont think he's such a bad choice). Romney is too polished, he is a CEO and CEO's make for poor presidents in democracies.

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney rules, but I think he will lose tonight and then in NH. I hate Huckabee and I won't vote for him if he is the nominee.

I'l probably end up voting for Ron Paul when he eventually decides to run as a 3rd party (I hope). I mean C'mon. We're gonna lose this thing anyway we might as well show the country that we aren't all on board the global ship Unanimous. Screw Giuliani and Huckabee. I'd be more likely to vote for McCain than them.

[Don Corleone]

To be honest Don I would have wagered you to be a McCain man myself (and I dont think he's such a bad choice). Romney is too polished, he is a CEO and CEO's make for poor presidents in democracies.

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.

I was a McCain man in 2000. But I cannot get past the immigration debacle and McCain-Feingold. Reading the tea-leaves behind these two policy stances, McCain has a fundamental lack of respect for the average citizen. There's no other way to interpret it. He doesn't believe you and I should be able to put our money together and run an ad that runs counter to what Ted Turner has decided CNN has to say today. And he doesn't think you or I have the right to keep people from breaking the law and then turning around and living off our our hard work (granting social security to illegal immigrants). Sorry, can't go there.

Plus, my family are all submarine guys, and McCain always votes against submarine appropriations. Just kidding on that last one.

As for Fred, well, as I see it there are five viable Republican candidates right now.

Giuliani: No right to self-defense. Believes in subsidized abortion through the late term. Sorry. I respect his honesty, but can't get past these two fundamental points.

McCain: See above.

Huckabee: A social conservative that may very well outspend Democrats. Somebody referred to Bloomburg as what Democrats 'used' to be. So is Huckabee. He's a populist that will buy votes and has no macro-economic common sense.

Romney: See above. I've got too many questions about his character in light of his latest ad campaigns.

That leaves Fred, by default. Remember my comment about Romney being the leper with the most fingers? Well, he lost two more over the holiday and Fred now holds the lead with me.

[Xiahou]

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.

According to himself, Thompson just plain doesn't like modern campaigning. I don't either.

I really hope Huckabee loses big in Iowa. He's an unelectable distraction. The sooner he goes away the better. I'm so sick of his "Well gosh, aint I a nice guy?" type response to virtually every criticism or policy question...

[Odin]

I was a McCain man in 2000. But I cannot get past the immigration debacle and McCain-Feingold. Reading the tea-leaves behind these two policy stances, McCain has a fundamental lack of respect for the average citizen. There's no other way to interpret it. He doesn't believe you and I should be able to put our money together and run an ad that runs counter to what Ted Turner has decided CNN has to say today. And he doesn't think you or I have the right to keep people from breaking the law and then turning around and living off our our hard work (granting social security to illegal immigrants). Sorry, can't go there.

Plus, my family are all submarine guys, and McCain always votes against submarine appropriations. Just kidding on that last one.

As for Fred, well, as I see it there are five viable Republican candidates right now.

Giuliani: No right to self-defense. Believes in subsidized abortion through the late term. Sorry. I respect his honesty, but can't get past these two fundamental points.

McCain: See above.

Huckabee: A social conservative that may very well outspend Democrats. Somebody referred to Bloomburg as what Democrats 'used' to be. So is Huckabee. He's a populist that will buy votes and has no macro-economic common sense.

Romney: See above. I've got too many questions about his character in light of his latest ad campaigns.

That leaves Fred, by default. Remember my comment about Romney being the leper with the most fingers? Well, he lost two more over the holiday and Fred now holds the lead with me.

Excellent summary Don. Yes McCain has egg on his face with his coloboration with Mr Feingold, wont argue that one. I know Romney, your spot on. Same with Rudy, how a gun control pro choice thrice married republican could ever hope for the nominee is beyond me.

Huckabee has no chance at outspending the current republican administration, heck they even expanded the federal government with an entire new cabinet level position. But yeah he is a populist.

Fred on the other hand is dreary, really he just dosent seem to set himself apart from anyone on any issue. For all the shortcomings you listed of the others, this makes them intriquing. Maybe Fred is the right guy, but I couldnt tell you because he has done little to inspire me to seek out his platform.

[Odin]

According to himself, Thompson just plain doesn't like modern campaigning. I don't either.

I really hope Huckabee loses big in Iowa. He's an unelectable distraction. The sooner he goes away the better. I'm so sick of his "Well gosh, aint I a nice guy?" type response to virtually every criticism or policy question...

Well Fred may not like it but he's lost just about all the momentum he had coming in. He was the front runner not to long ago and he hadnt even entered. Huckabee will win, he's a practicing christian, republicans swoon over that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I liked Fred before.

If he can pull off a campaign in this style and win, the subsequent lateration of campaign spending and tactics would -- of itself -- be worth his election.

Here's hoping against polls.

[Don Corleone]

You heard it here first. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm shredding my Republican party membership card, as it will be clear that my style of conservativism is no longer welcome. If elected, Huckabee would be disastrous for America. I'd vote for Hillary or Obama before I'd vote for him, because at least they have a guiding philosophy of government they believe in for all the spending and taxing (one I happen to disagree with, but it IS a theory). Huckabee just buys votes. He's a boss-hog character prettied up really well. And while I respect the man's devotion to his faith and years serving others as a minister, it has scant little bearing on his capabality to lead.

[Lemur]

Intrade is calling Huckabee/Obama. Actually, every trading market that bets on the process is calling that. Doesn't mean they're right, but it's worth noting.

-edit-

Looks like Ron Paul can always be President of Azeroth, assuming he doesn't become President of the United States.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm hoping for obama/huckabee. A huckabee win is the best thing for McCain (the best republican candidate) and there's no way huckabee would win an election...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don, Seamus and Xiahou:

If Thompson were to drop out after NH, do you have any ideas about who you would shift your votes to?

[Don Corleone]

Mike Gravel. But if he dropped out AFTER New Hampshire, my vote would already be cast.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You heard it here first. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm shredding my Republican party membership card, as it will be clear that my style of conservativism is no longer welcome. If elected, Huckabee would be disastrous for America. I'd vote for Hillary or Obama before I'd vote for him, because at least they have a guiding philosophy of government they believe in for all the spending and taxing (one I happen to disagree with, but it IS a theory). Huckabee just buys votes. He's a boss-hog character prettied up really well. And while I respect the man's devotion to his faith and years serving others as a minister, it has scant little bearing on his capabality to lead.

I agree 100%

Boss Hogs have no place on my ticket.

I was never a Republican to begin with, but Romney and Paul made me reconsider.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Mike Gravel. But if he dropped out AFTER New Hampshire, my vote would already be cast.

Really? You think that a guy who filed for bankruptcy in 2004 should be elected to figure out our financial mess?

[Don Corleone]

I was being facetioius. I'm not sure where, but I made my thoughts known on our friend from Alaska in one of these election threads.

Honestly, I don't really know. I'd probably have to bite the bullet on the personal liberties issue and pick Rudy.

I say that because Romney's attacks, after telling everyone for the past year he was running on his own record, have me seriously questioning what he really stands for.

McCain, beyond the reasons I've cited, has too dangerous a temper to give him launch codes.

And Huckabee... well, I think he'd 'care' a lot. And if we needed a National Guidance Counselor, he'd have my vote. But it's clear he doesn't understand macroeconomics when you hear about his trade policies. And this is from a man that ISN'T trying to win the Union vote.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I like Bill Richardson. If I could get him to drop the 'surrender in Iraq, right now' position, he'd have my vote. And I strongly suspect he's playing to the Left wing of his party, that's he's too shrewd to surrender and run out of the country, though I do think he'd start actively withdrawing, which I'm also opposed to.

[CountArach]

Kucinich, though I am still an Aussie, so I really can't vote.

[Don Corleone]

Wait a minute, where's my brain. I forgot that Curt Schilling (starting pitcher for the 2007 World Championship Boston Red Sox) did a commercial endorsing McCain. That's good enough for my vote. If the bloody-sock wants him, then so do I!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was being facetioius. I'm not sure where, but I made my thoughts known on our friend from Alaska in one of these election threads.

Honestly, I don't really know. I'd probably have to bite the bullet on the personal liberties issue and pick Rudy.

I say that because Romney's attacks, after telling everyone for the past year he was running on his own record, have me seriously questioning what he really stands for.

McCain, beyond the reasons I've cited, has too dangerous a temper to give him launch codes.

And Huckabee... well, I think he'd 'care' a lot. And if we needed a National Guidance Counselor, he'd have my vote. But it's clear he doesn't understand macroeconomics when you hear about his trade policies. And this is from a man that ISN'T trying to win the Union vote.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I like Bill Richardson. If I could get him to drop the 'surrender in Iraq, right now' position, he'd have my vote. And I strongly suspect he's playing to the Left wing of his party, that's he's too shrewd to surrender and run out of the country, though I do think he'd start actively withdrawing, which I'm also opposed to.

What about the abortion issue? Not one of the democratic candidates has even a middle ground opinion on that. I understand the idea of a strong economy. That's why I won't vote for Huckabee, but if you do honestly believe that Abortion needs to be limited at least as much as is politically possible, how can you cast your vote behind someone who doesn't for a second believe in even a middle ground on the issue. Biden is the only one to approach a sensible position on the matter. How can they all have a 100% rating by NARAL? They are the extremists and I find that to be an inhumane, abhorrent and un-democratic position.

Allowing them to believe for a second that they can count on my vote simply because the GOP failed is a crime.

I believe you to be more "pro-life" than "pro-choice". If you believe that abortion is state allowed (and sometimes sanctioned) murder, how can you turn a blind eye on it for a second. The ability to overlook such a travesty calls into question the strength of the pro-life position. If a foetus is a human life that deserves rights, it cannot be overlooked.

I just want abortion laws to AT LEAST resemble those in Europe and allow for our conscience to move us to end the travesty once and for all when we are ready to do so. A mainstream election without a candidate that represents that sentiment is a joke.



I really think that Romney was the true center-right candidate in this election. I wish that he pushed himself in that direction during the run-up to the caucus.

[Don Corleone]

What about the abortion issue? Not one of the democratic candidates has even a middle ground opinion on that. I understand the idea of a strong economy. That's why I won't vote for Huckabee, but if you do honestly believe that Abortion needs to be limited at least as much as is politically possible, how can you cast your vote behind someone who doesn't for a second believe in even a middle ground on the issue. Biden is the only one to approach a sensible position on the matter. How can they all have a 100% rating by NARAL? They are the extremists and I find that to be an inhumane, abhorrent and un-democratic position.

Allowing them to believe for a second that they can count on my vote simply because the GOP failed is a crime.

I believe you to be more "pro-life" than "pro-choice". If you believe that abortion is state allowed (and sometimes sanctioned) murder, how can you turn a blind eye on it for a second. The ability to overlook such a travesty calls into question the strength of the pro-life position. If a foetus is a human life that deserves rights, it cannot be overlooked .

Well, you do have a point. Frankly, I tend to forget about abortion with respect to presidential candidates, as there's not a lot they can do about it. But they can pick judges. And in order to get a 100% approval from NARAL, you have to favor elective 3rd trimester abortions (yuck!).

But as I've said before, abortion is the original and one true wedge issue. Both sides purposely sandbag their own efforts, so they can beat that drum to their constituents in the next election. George Bush is supposedly pro-life, but what have we done to reduce access to late term abortions in the 7 (count 'em) years he's been in office?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, you do have a point. Frankly, I tend to forget about abortion with respect to presidential candidates, as there's not a lot they can do about it. But they can pick judges. And in order to get a 100% approval from NARAL, you have to favor elective 3rd trimester abortions (yuck!).

But as I've said before, abortion is the original and one true wedge issue. Both sides purposely sandbag their own efforts, so they can beat that drum to their constituents in the next election. George Bush is supposedly pro-life, but what have we done to reduce access to late term abortions in the 7 (count 'em) years he's been in office?

Right. I feel as though we were de-clawed during his administration. During the Clinton years our numbers in Washington every January were amazing. I do feel betrayed, but that's why I'm not a Republican - so I can feel betrayed without being disillusioned as well.

He did appoint Alito and Roberts (who seems to be a long way away from the Souter mistake) and like you said, that's really the only substantial thing he could do.

Either way - If it is Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama/Edwards and Paul runs 3rd party, I will vote for Paul because his economic ideas are very good and he understands that there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness without first the protection of life. I could possibly vote Obama if he wasn't over 60% with NARAL.

[Tribesman]

It has to be Dodd , while he has shown some difficulties in working through tax policies he works hard , does have a wide range of experience and is well known to deliver value for money .

[Don Corleone]

Right. I feel as though we were de-clawed during his administration. During the Clinton years our numbers in Washington every January were amazing. I do feel betrayed, but that's why I'm not a Republican - so I can feel betrayed without being disillusioned as well.

He did appoint Alito and Roberts (who seems to be a long way away from the Souter mistake) and like you said, that's really the only substantial thing he could do.

Either way - If it is Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama/Edwards and Paul runs 3rd party, I will vote for Paul because his economic ideas are very good and he understands that there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness without first the protection of life. I could possibly vote Obama if he wasn't over 60% with NARAL.

Well, there are a couple of things the executive branch can do. They can limit funding for abortions on emergency medical bills. They can issue executive orders. And most importantly, they can lead from the bully pulpit. To the best of my knowledge, President Bush refrained from doing any of these things.

But abortion is not a driving issue for me. I appreciate and agree with your characterization of my views, more pro-life than pro-choice, but nobody that's truly pro-life would ever characterize me as pro-life.

Based on ~30 years of actively following politics (yes, I watched the news during the Carter years), I've come to realize that chosing a candidate for president is more about limiting damage. Who will do the least harm. I also look for candidates that are wise enough to focus on the big issues. Abortion status isn't changing anytime soon, so it's not an issue I expect the candidates to lead with. In fact, if that's one of their lead issues (*cough* *Huckabee* *cough*), then I generally assume they don't have any winning policies on issues they might actually be able to impact.

Right now, I'm deeply disappointed in Republicans and Democrats that our one big chance for National debate, the primaries has been squandered and nobody, R or D, has even mentioned, let alone expanded upon, what are some things they might do to reverse the trend of just how poorly prepared for global competition our current students and new graduates are.

I hate to sound like an old codger (I'm only 37), but frankly, if we don't get off our collective ass and remember how to work hard, we're going to get creamed and China, Singapore, India and Malaysia are going to eat our lunch. And they should. I'm an uber-capitalist, and if they are generating the best workforce, their econcomy should dominate. I know it's a symptom of success that asymptotically approaches a point, which is why Japan wasn't included in that list, but we're in serious of danger of having a generation of burger-flippers if our youth don't get going.

My generation was bad. Very bad, and we lost a lot of ground. But this one is even worse. I interview graduates with 3.4/3.5 GPAs from respected schools, and it scares the out of me what they don't know.

That's something I'd like to see addressed. And all I hear is "free college education" from the left and "what problem? we're the greatest nation on Earth", or worse, "we need more immigration visas" from the right.