With Mr. Gore's record in eviormentalism and Mr. Richardson's in human and civil rights, it would be a great team. Unlike Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, these two actualy stand for something (being a woman or African-American is not a stance.)
If the Democrats are willing to loose with intellegence and integrity, they may yet win; if they attempt to win with spinelessness and spin, as they did in 2004, they will surely loose.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
If the Democrats nominate Al Gore again they will also probably lose.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Perhaps, but it is better to loose for a cause than to win without one, ne?
And I think that Al Gore could easily win, if he managed his campaign better than last time. Of the two, Mr. Richardson is the more interesting, but probably lacks the national standing to win on his own. Even in New Mexico, voters are questioning whether the national electorate would vote for an Hispanic.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Gore/Richardson in '08?
God forbid.
quote:Unlike Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, these two actualy stand for something (being a woman or African-American is not a stance.)
I...yeah, that's where I can't read this anymore.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
When I read this, I only saw "Richards." Which made me think of the Fantastic Four.
Thing for President!
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"God forbid."
Would you care to elaborate on that stance?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
No, it's not. Presidents are not just a cause. They have to run the country for four years. The next president isn't just going to face environmental issues. He's going to have to deal with terrorism, with international relations, with the deficit, to name a few. Having a "cause" sounds great on the campaign trail, but in reality, presidents, far more than congressmen, need to be good leaders above everything else.
I'm sure I would trust Al Gore to do what's best for the environment. I don't trust him to lead our nation strongly and well. I don't trust him to deal with the crises that a president will inevitably have to deal with. I really don't think the rest of the country does either.
If the Republicans have their way this election will be about national security, not the environment. Nominating Al Gore would be suicide for the Democratic party under those circumstances.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" The next president isn't just going to face environmental issues. "
A curious theory. The next President may choose not to face them, but somebody has to face them sometime.
"need to be good leaders above everything else."
Yes, they need to lead towards the good, which entails knowing and loving the good (I am starting to sound like my headmaster, but stay with me), and thus, having a cause.
Mr. Bush has a cause, bizarre though it may be spreading world revolution (not for nothing is it said that neo-conservativism is a right-wing response to Trotskyism.)
Hillary Clinton had a cause at one point, long ago (I think it was healthcare, but I am too young to remember), now her only cause is Hillary Clinton.
If you mean that a head of government must be pragmatic, you are right. Sr. Zapatero, the serving leader I can find it in myself to admire, has made himself internationaly know as pragmatic, wheras his oposistion is seen, in Spain and elsewhere, as overly hard-line. But Sr. Zapatero is not a slave to anyone, his willingness to take on powerful factions such as the Church has shown that.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"If the Republicans have their way this election will be about national security, not the environment."
If the Democrats have a brain hidden away in there, the election will be primarily about civil rights, a cause which the Republicans can not compete for. Of, they may win such an election, perhaps it would even be probable, but they would be even more discredited than they are now. Mr. Richardson could make it an election on those terms, a party representing the country and the world, and another one representing heterosexual anglo Protestants.
The Republicans might even loose Texas if they were seen as anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic (both of which have a degree of truth, they are anti-Immigrant and have a great many policies that the Church does not stand for, the War in Iraq and Executions being foremost among them.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: " The next president isn't just going to face environmental issues. "
A curious theory. The next President may choose not to face them, but somebody has to face them sometime.
The word "just" was central to that sentence. Yes, environmental issues will need to be dealt with. But they are not nearly the only issues that will need to be dealt with.
quote: Yes, they need to lead towards the good, which entails knowing and loving the good (I am starting to sound like my headmaster, but stay with me), and thus, having a cause.
There are two problems with this sentence.
1. Having a cause is not a logical conclusion of the first part of that sentence. A cause is a morally neutral thing. Not only that, but at times a cause can be detrimental to doing what is right for the country. Look at Grover Cleveland, he had a cause- Tariff reform. Something that much of the time would even be a good cause. But he was president during the depression of 1893 and his cause made the depression much worse than it would otherwise have been.
2. By good leader, I didn't not mean morally good. I meant good at leading people. Good at making the kind of snap decisions that a president has to make. A president should be a good man, as well, but that was not what I was addressing with that sentence.
quote: If the Democrats have a brain hidden away in there, the election will be primarily about civil rights, a cause which the Republicans can not compete for.
I'm not convinced in the current feardriven environment the Democrats could win a campaign based on civil rights. Regardless of that, though, I base all of my predictions on the assumption the Democrats will continue to behave as stupidly as they have in the past few years.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Look at Grover Cleveland, he had a cause- Tariff reform. Something that much of the time would even be a good cause. But he was president during the depression of 1893 and his cause made the depression much worse than it would otherwise have been. "
Poor Grover Cleveland, he has Liberals' disease, fighting for something that is good but just not very interesting. It is hard to get as excited about Liberal ideas like tariff reforms and multiculturalism as being whiped into a frenzy by a Marxist with talk of the proleteriate revolution or a Conservative with dire predictions of the doom wrought by cultural diffusion.
At times, we Liberals must seem like such relics of the past, with a philsophy based on the long dead Locke and Voltaire.
By the way, tariff reform does not make depresions worse, poorly managed relief does that. Indeed, tariffs have created depressions.
"By good leader, I didn't not mean morally good."
I knew that.
"I'm not convinced in the current feardriven environment the Democrats could win a campaign based on civil rights. "
Maybe they can't, but they should be able to. Democracy is imperfect and the best choice does not always win, indeed this hapens rarely (are there still any who would have voted for Harding, much less Hitler?)
Winning is not the ultimate goal, winning with integrity is. Socrates said something to that effect over 2000 years ago.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: With Mr. Gore's record in eviormentalism and Mr. Richardson's in human and civil rights, it would be a great team.
Who the hell is "Richardson"?
Anyway, I would have thought you'd like Obama, Pelegius. He's about the closest thing we have to a communist in Washington.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" He's about the closest thing we have to a communist in Washington."
I am not a Communist, and Mr. Richardson is the govenor of New Mexico, often cited as a likely VP (Mr. Kerry was rumored to have picked him before word got out about the fairly odious Mr. Edwards.)
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
From what I understand, Bill Richardson is sort of like the Bill Clinton of New Mexico: a state governor mired in scandal after scandal but still somehow beloved by the Democratic party. I could see him ending as veep candidate pretty easily, if he doesn't make his own presidential bid.
I sorta like Al Gore now that he's gone out of "politician mode" and has actual character, but I suspect that will work against him and ultimately the Democrats will run another cloyingly bland blowhard from the northeast.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: By the way, tariff reform does not make depresions worse, poorly managed relief does that. Indeed, tariffs have created depressions.
Exactly my point. In many, possibly even most situations tariff reform in a good thing. That's why in my original post, I acknowledged it was "Something that much of the time would even be a good cause." However, in this specific case it was a very bad thing. Which was an example of why causes are not a substitute for good, thoughtful leadership.
quote: "By good leader, I didn't not mean morally good."
I knew that.
Then I am at a loss as to why you responded as though you did not.
quote: Winning is not the ultimate goal
Maybe not to you. It is the ultimate goal of the Democratic party, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would vote for Gore/Richardson.
I would MUCH rather see something along the lines of Richardson/Clinton or Richardson/Obama.
I've never seen anyone who could really explain their feelings on Hillary to me. I don't understand why everyone thinks she does whatever she has to to stay in power. If anyone can show me anything substantive, it'd be nice to understand the antipathy towards her.
I've hoped for awhile now that Bill Richardson would run. And for one main reason: He'll balance the budget. He'll finally get us out of the red ink. He has brought New Mexico out of a huge debt and now they are in the black, and I believe he'd do the same thing for the US as a whole. The only question after that is who is his running mate?
Both Obama and Clinton would make for a minority/minority ticket, for all intents and purposes calling women a minority. Nailing down the hispanic and black vote would be helpful, but does it make up for whatever votes would be lost? No way to know. But I think either Clinton or Obama would make a great VP candidate, so they can gain experience on their way to their own Presidential bid once they get more experience.
As for Clinton in general, I'd like to see her push her way to the top of the party, and one day be the leader of the senate democrats. Obama can be president.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" I don't understand why everyone thinks she does whatever she has to to stay in power. If anyone can show me anything substantive, it'd be nice to understand the antipathy towards her."
Her voting record, for one. She has often backed such populist bills as one banning flag burning.
"However, in this specific case it was a very bad thing."
No, it was just poorly done, it could have been done well.
"Maybe not to you. It is the ultimate goal of the Democratic party, though."
The Democrats are corrupt. I am a Liberal democrat, and will vote for them, but not happily. Between Skylla and Charybdis, with no route to sail, I choose the only port open to me, even if it is filled with pirates.
Oposistion parties are usualy the best, they stay in oposistion becouse they are too moral to win. Of course, there are more parties that stay in oposistion becouse they are crazy....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sounds like you want to turn Al Gore into the next Henry Clay Pelegius.
Where is this emnity for Obama coming from? IMO he is one of the most brilliant and honest of the entire democrat party. I am still holding out for a suprise McCain Obama ticket or maybe Obama McCain ticket. I'd run to the polls for either of those.
Ill be honest Pel, when it comes to voting, most Americans could not give a damn about Carbon emmissions or the environment. When I say most, I mean most Americans are more concerned with say the US in the middle east, taxes, and illegal immigration. Certainly there are people who hate Bush for his environmental record, but it seems like its more of a bullet point in a list, and not the most lengthy. We have the green party for the environment, and you can see how well they do.
The way Gore handled losing to me makes it hard for him to be a serious presidential candidate. He IMO was great as a VP.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, other than flag burning Pelegius? I wasn't that happy when I saw her voting for that either, but it's not enough to make me not vote for her.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If the Republicans have their way this election will be about national security.
Which I find absolutely laughable. I find it hard if not impossible to imagine how anyone could have done worse than the Republicans have done on National Security issues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Republicans don't want this to be an argument on national security, especially in 08 if they have to run against Hillary, who despite people like OSC railing against her on the military, has a perfect voting record on supporting the military, among many generals who support her and her record on bring up issues first, like troops needing more armor in Iraq.
Republicans don't want to get bogged down in the mistakes made over the last 8 years, they want this to be a war of ideologies. They want a "them bad, we good" election. It has to be about values to rally their base. On most major substantive issues they are polling well below the Democrats, even on national security.
Republicans need to make this into an argument about the future, and which ideology people want running this country into the next phase of its existance. I think some will go along with the Bush Doctrine of world order, but the last year or so, and I think the next 2 years especially, will repel many from it, right into the Democrat camp, or at the very least a moderate Republican. Republicans have two years to distance themselves from Bush, how well they do it, whilst still managing to take some credit for his successes, will determine which one gets the nom, and if he'll get elected.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I hope the Democrats see the hole that the Republicans have left open, and move towards social liberalism and fiscal responsibility. I'd be thrilled.
I think Obama will be too chancy a canidate for President - it's a horrible thing to say, but race matters in politics, and the Democrats could lose too many votes by putting him in for President. VP I could see. If the Democrats are clever they'll pick up someone from the Southwest/South who is either of Hispanic descent or has a good relationship with his/her Hispanic constituency. The other person on the ticket will probably be the typical WASP-y New Englander for balance.
I think it's too early to say what the main concerns during the race will be - right now it's the economy, the war in Iraq, and national security - all bad topics for the Republicans up for reelection. If we go into an economic downturn (some indicators suggest we've already entered one) then the economy will rise in importance. Unless there's a major, major enviromental disaster (think something just below The Day After Tomorrow), I don't think the enviroment will be a big issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The way Gore handled losing to me makes it hard for him to be a serious presidential candidate.
How, in his situation, would you have handled losing?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Remember, while Democrats argue whether to be pro-war or anti-war, the facts on the ground prove the current administration is bad-at-war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Democrats need to win every state they took in the 2000 election with Gore, +1. ANY state.
How many states were decided by less than 10,000 votes? Less than 5,000? Less than 1,000?
Bill Richardson would give the Democrats back New Mexico. Other than that, all they'd need back is Iowa, and then hold onto what they gained with Kerry. The electoral map is curious. And by the way, incredibly stupid, which is why we should really get rid of it entirely, but that's another story.
I think much of New England would vote for any race or gender, which means targeting the Red states to see who can be wooed away.
Also consider what states will lose and gain votes with the shifting of voting populations. LA just lost two electoral votes or more, whilst I'm betting Texas and GA picked up one, and maybe Florida. I'm curious as to what the map looks like in 2008.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I'm sure I would trust Al Gore to do what's best for the environment. I don't trust him to lead our nation strongly and well. I don't trust him to deal with the crises that a president will inevitably have to deal with. I really don't think the rest of the country does either.
Um. I mean this as respectfully as possible, but that doesn't sound like a very intelligent statement. What exactly are you basing it on?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I'm sure I would trust Al Gore to do what's best for the environment. I don't trust him to lead our nation strongly and well. I don't trust him to deal with the crises that a president will inevitably have to deal with. I really don't think the rest of the country does either.
Um. I mean this as respectfully as possible, but that doesn't sound like a very intelligent statement. What exactly are you basing it on?
Which part? The part where I don't trust him, or the part where I don't think other people do?
And what exactly is unintelligent about it? If you disagree with something I say, at least give some sort of reason for saying I'm stupid.
And just a hint, if you actually wanted to be respectful a post along the lines of: "What makes you say that? I trust Gore for such and such reasons. Is there anything in particular you are basing that statement on?" Would fulfill that goal much better.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It seems fairly straight-forward to me. I'd trust the best enviromental scientist with a grounding in economic theory to do what's best for the enviroment, given the constraints. I wouldn't trust this same person to do what's best in every other situation requiring presidential leadership. Al Gore could be a similar person - good at the enviroment, bad at other things. Blacwolve doesn't give her reasons for why Al Gore might be bad at these other things, but most of the posts here are personal views on the different possible candidates - there's very little statistical evidence backing up any of the claims we're throwing around in this thread, so why pick on blacwolve?
*edit* Darn, she beat me to it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I for one am very curious as to the source of such personal opinions.
I asked Pelegius for a more detailed explanation of his feelings on Clinton, someone else asked him to clarify his feelings on Barrack Obama.
And now I'll politely ask blacwolve what it is exactly that makes her distrust Al Gore on matters of national security? Why wouldn't he handle a crisis well?
And as a side note, how does this compare with your opinion of the current president's ability to do the same?
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Its sad that Obama can be discounted out of the race on the basis of how bigots may or may not vote. As an Australian who follows American politics with some interest, He seems to be the best politician you guys have.
Pel, I don't think hes been making his name by being black. I don't think Hilary made her name by being a woman. They both stand for alot of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the minorities they seem to represent by de facto just by belonging to them.
Obama/Richardson, running on a ticket of a vision of the future that involves a country not so divided, both politically and economically, and getting america back on track with the noble tradition it was founded on.
I think that'd be nice anyway. I guess moderation and co-operation aren't "exciting" enough to be campaign issues. They are causes though, and ones that would be more interesting to talk about than which party is more competent than the other, with both sides arguing that the other side is worse.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't call him the best politician automatically, but I would call him the best politician of the next generation of lawmakers.
I think they could both be pegged a bit on inexperience, but they both have more than Bush had when he was elected (but then, we all know how that turned out don't we?). But I think that makes it all the more important for Richardson to be on the front of the ticket, not the back.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Gore's not a good schmoozer. To be an effective president, you've got to get folks in Congress on your side... Gore's not good at that.
I'm no fan of Bush, and also not a fan of (Bill) Clinton, but both are good schmoozers.
Carter wasn't, and that was one of the things that doomed him to a single term.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are you kidding? Bush is horrible at what you call schmoozing. He tells Congress what he wants and they more or less tell him to shut up, and go about doing whatever he wants. He rarely, if ever, even sends them legislation to talk about, he just tells them to come to a specific decision on a topic that he wants. And more often than notlately they ignore him.
It's too polarized right now for any sort of people skills to make a damned bit of difference. And either way, Gore would have all the democrats on his side, and as many Republicans as Bush has Democrats. I don't see a substantive difference. Besides, "New Gore" is a lot more personable than "Old Gore."
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
I get the solid impression from Hillary Clinton that she firmly believes whatever she believes will be her best bet for victory. I'm not cynical enough to believe the professional politicians are an acceptable thing. The insincerity looses it for me.
Also, there's no chance on earth I'd vote for anyone that's had anything to do with Massachusetts politics; I've written the state off as infested with corruption and want nothing more to do with it. NH, while they have a better record than many on civil liberties, is not good at attracting and maintaining solid business. And, well, Connecticut is Connecticut and Lieberman is an excellent example of that. So I don't have high hopes for a solid candidate out of New England this time around.
For the record, I thought Kerry was a joke as a Presidential candidate.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: And now I'll politely ask blacwolve what it is exactly that makes her distrust Al Gore on matters of national security? Why wouldn't he handle a crisis well?
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. When I say I don't trust him, I don't mean I distrust him, or that I think he would necessarily be bad at it. Although I completely understand how my words are interpreted that way. I see most people as being in a neutral trust zone. People have to earn my distrust or trust. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm guessing that's not a normal view of trust, so I'm sorry about that.
Let me preface this by saying that I remember very little of Clinton's presidency. This means that my views on both Hilary and Gore are based on what they're currently doing and on what I can glean from historical sources. So I'm starting from a position of less knowledge than most of the people on this thread. I watched the 2000 campaign rather closely, but other than that my exposure to Gore has been limited. In fact, prior to this thread I had never paid a significant amount of attention to Al Gore. I just want it made clear that I realize I'm arguing from a position of ignorance. Also, my opinions on Al Gore are completely subjective. I never meant to say that other people shouldn't trust him on those issues.
When I say I don't trust Al Gore, I just mean that he's never done anything to earn my trust. As far as my memory and a quick perusal of wikipedia tell me he's never handled a major crisis, well or badly. Sure, he might handle a major crisis well, but I prefer something as important as that to be a known variable in a presidential canidate. The same with national security, to my knowledge he's a fairly unknown quantity, except for his position on the War in Iraq. How would he handle terrorism? How will he reconcile American freedom with American safety? The general Democratic rhetoric on these issues makes them seem simple, but I don't think they are, I want our next president to think more deeply about them than simply spouting off the party line rhetoric. Not that Gore is doing that, just as a general rule.
As for being a good leader, I'm not sure how to answer this. The word "trust" and the term "good leader" are both completely subjective. I've never seen him exhibit any particularly good leadership skills. That's the closest I can come to answering this.
I'll admit that I've been more influenced than I should probably be by hearing both Democrats and Republicans in the weeks and months after September 11th mention how much worse it would have been had Gore been president.
Finally I want to note that National Security and the War in Iraq are incredibly far down on the list of issues that are important to me. I seriously doubt that I will be voting based on either issue in '08. I will also be significantly more informed when I vote in '08.
If any one would like to enlighten me about aspects of Gore's career that I missed when I was still a carefree child, I'd really appreciate it. Moreso if it's done in a noncondescending manner.
quote: And as a side note, how does this compare with your opinion of the current president's ability to do the same?
I am more ambivalent toward the current president than most Democrats would like. I think he did a very good job of pulling the country together after 9/11. Although I think his leadership skills since then have not been that great. I disagree with almost all of his legislation until recently. I think his stance on immigration is the most logical course of action. I also think that he was right to stand behind the ports deal. Currently, my litmus test for politicians is how they voted on the ports deal. In my opinion blocking it was incredibly stupid on many levels, and morally wrong on many, many more. In general, though, when I'm asked to rate the current president in polls I usually go for "unfavorably."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now that you've explained your views on trust, I see what you're saying.
As far as Gore goes, even just reading his article on Wikipedia would give you a better idea of him. He has a lot of experience with tragedy and crisis in his life and in his political life. I think he has it in him to handle it well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I don't trust him to lead our nation strongly and well.
"...Americans are more concerned with say the US in the middle east"
Wrongo. They're concerned about gas supply. If they gave a hoot about the MiddleEast, they wouldn't be driving around in gas hogs tossing money at Iran to arm Hezbollah against Israel, to recruit&arm insurgents&terrorists against UStroops, and to fund the Iranian nuclear program.
[ September 06, 2006, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's against the law to buy oil from, or to help develop in any way Iran's oil industry.
Check your facts.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
As much as the oil bit is tossed around, it's a serious issue in the Middle East. A lot of countries with oil, diamonds, natural resources in high demand in Africa and the Middle East have essentially skipped the trials and tribulations of industrialization, power struggles with a middle class, and a gradually empowered citizenry that have shaped most of the dominant political players, and skipped directly to having access to money, technology, and effect military weapons.
It's also worth noting that US is gaining much more in the form of rebuilding contracts than the oil represents; the "we went to war for oil" argument has always seemed poor to me. Of course we went to war for oil. If Iraq didn't have oil it wouldn't have been able to supply its army by illegally selling oil for food purchase rights to British, French, and Russian diplomats. It's but a small motive in an historically complex situation.
And, Aspectre, the idea that because Bush is bad Gore must be good or less bad isn't valid. It is a logical and valid possibility that they suck equally.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Iran's under embargo? I didn't know that. I wonder if the UN has orchestrated the same corrupt arrangement of loopholes to sell Iranian oil that they did for Iraq.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's US law, not international law. Iran sells a lot of their oil to China and Japan, and I'd imagine India.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Let me give you a little right-wing perspective here on who I think conservative Republicans, including myself, would love to run against in '08: Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. Can't go wrong with any of these. Doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is.
Democrats that make me nervous: Obama, Richardson, and Edwards. Mind you, I don't like any of these guys, but Obama and Richardson are thoughtful sounding and very effective presenters of message. They're non-devisive (i.e., GOP voters won't come out in droves to vote against them like they would against Clinton) and seem able to motivate the party faithful. All are excellent communicators, unlike Kerry who can talk about his plan for Iraq for hours and when he's done you wonder what his plan is. (Did anyone else hear Ira Glass' on his Aug 18 NPR show "This American Life" and his hilarious take on Kerry and why he just won't go away?")
Edwards is a very effective campaigner, and he's got his populist, class struggle shtick down pat. I under-estimated his populist appeal once, and I don't think the GOP should do it again.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The way Gore handled losing to me makes it hard for him to be a serious presidential candidate.
How, in his situation, would you have handled losing?
Oh I don't think I would have personally done anything different, except perhaps not declared that I was resigning and then said oh wait NO I'M NOT (But there wasn't much Gore could have done about that.) Oh and selective recounting was a bad idea IMO. I would have just recounted Florida in bulk and waited for results.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Blackblade wrote:
quote:Oh and selective recounting was a bad idea IMO. I would have just recounted Florida in bulk and waited for results.
Not to rehash the 2000 election, but you're right on this. If I recall correctly, several papers, including the Miami Herald and the NYTimes, conducted there onwn recount under several different conditions and found that Bush would have won under the selective recount that Gore demanded, but that Gore would have won if there had been a state-wide recount under the most liberal counting rules, e.g., leting a hanging chad count for Gore, etc. The irony is that Gore didn't want to count all the votes, he only wanted to recount the votes in selected counties, while the Bush camp said that if you have to have a recount it should be state-wide and not selective. (The Bush team didn't actually want a recount, why recount when your leading, but understood that there wasn't enough time, legally, to recount the whole state.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that one of the reasons for not wanting a state-wide recount was specifically the Bush team's -- and, specifically, Katherine Harris' -- refusal to reconsider the recount deadlines, which when coupled with the Republican-led "temporary" suspension of recounts would have made a state-wide count impossible within that time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Let me give you a little right-wing perspective here on who I think conservative Republicans, including myself, would love to run against in '08: Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. Can't go wrong with any of these. Doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is.
Democrats that make me nervous: Obama, Richardson, and Edwards. Mind you, I don't like any of these guys, but Obama and Richardson are thoughtful sounding and very effective presenters of message. They're non-devisive (i.e., GOP voters won't come out in droves to vote against them like they would against Clinton) and seem able to motivate the party faithful. All are excellent communicators, unlike Kerry who can talk about his plan for Iraq for hours and when he's done you wonder what his plan is. (Did anyone else hear Ira Glass' on his Aug 18 NPR show "This American Life" and his hilarious take on Kerry and why he just won't go away?")
Edwards is a very effective campaigner, and he's got his populist, class struggle shtick down pat. I under-estimated his populist appeal once, and I don't think the GOP should do it again.
I think it's funny that you say ANY GOP could beat them. But it doesn't matter anyway, Kerry wouldn't even be a contender in the first couple primaries, there's no way he'll be the candidate. But if the GOP ran a crazed right winger, a la Condi Rice, or Dick Cheney (I know he won't run, just an example), Delay, or Bill Frist, or Rudy Giuliani, I think they'd be setting up as much of a polarizing figure doomed for defeat that you view Hillary as. Especially Condi, because it's almost like electing Bush again, only now it's a minority woman, which against Barrack Obama, does nothing for them.
Also, for the Democrats who have been mentioned before that I think would make GREAT candidates:
Russ Feingold, who I can't speak enough about, would be a great candidate. Mark Warner would be good too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think the Democrats need to run an African American in order to garner the African American vote. They always vote democrat. Wierdly enough Obama is the first African American to be voted into the Senate as a Democrat.
I really hope the democrats pull out Obama. But I am not sure he has enough experience to be president, I think he would do nicely as a Vice President though.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Lyrhawn,
Not sure I understand why you'd call Rudy Giuliani a right-winger, muchless a crazy right-winger. Sure there's a lot to like, but most conservative I know have never felt comfortable with his conservative credintials, which is why he's generally considered not a likely early primary winner among the likely conservative base in primary elections. Same can be said for McCain, but I think that he'd be very electable. As for Condi, I don't think we don't know enough about her apart from the foreign policy to be able to judge how similar to Bush she may be. She's been very cautious about expressing opinions on matters unrelated to her foreign policy and national security duties.
Tom,
You're right that the Bush camp didn't want a state-wide recount because they said there was no time. Arguement was: can't do selective recount because it was illegal, legal recount has to be statewide, but there's no time for a state-wide recount. Ergo Bush wins with current count.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apologies, I didn't necessarily mean to lump Giuliani in with the crazed right wingers. As a GOP candidate in general, I think he is unelectable.
And I didn't mention McCain specifically because I think he has BROAD cross-party appeal. If he ran with Colin Powell, I think they'd really mess up the American political scene in a very, very interesting way.
And as for Condi, it doesn't matter. Democrats will EASILY paint her (And I don't think it's unfair to do so) as Bush's henchwoman, and she'll be saddled with everything they didn't like about Bush. She was NSA during the two of the greatest intel failures in US history, 9/11 and pre-war Iraq. It's a blight on her record, and I don't think she can get around it. Besides, I've never gotten a good vibe off her. She's always scowling, and she talks like a know it all. Considering how often republicans talk about ivory tower liberals, a know it all scowly Republican isn't going to do them much good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: If only Mrs. Powell wasnt so worried about Mr. Powells safety were he elected.
Though I would like to see the cabinet first, I would have ALOT of faith in a Powell/McCain ticket.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I forgot to mention, I'd also like to see a cross party ticket. Something along the lines of McCain/Obama or McCain/Feingold.
It'd blow the US two party system wide open. They'd have to either create a new party or run as independents, which means the dems and the republicans will still run their own candidates, which most likely means pandering directly to their base. They have to know that McCain/mystery moderate Democrat would run the table with the moderates of the nation. But alas, dreams like that just don't come true. There's still too much party loyalty, and McCain has been talking to the GOP base too much lately to hope for anything like that to happen.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'd like to see a Mark Warner/Evan Bayh ticket. But then, I'm from Indiana, so I'm biased.
But Warner did a great job as governer of Virginia and is hugely popular there, so I think he'd be a good president. He would also get the all important South. Meanwhile, Bayh would pull Indiana, certainly, and probably a lot of other swing states in the Midwest.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Evan Bayh spoke at my university's graduation ceremony last May. It was very clear that he knew he was a potential runner in the presidential election. He seemed too much "slick politician" to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bayh has become more of a "politician" over the last few years. But he's still got more integrity in his little finger than the amassed House of Representatives.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I have been asked by many posters to elaborate my views on Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. My problem with each of them can be expressed in one word: populism. Mrs. Clinton with her bizarre voting record (banning flag burning) and Mr. Obama with his equally strange desire to woo conservatives seem out of touch with liberalism.
A politician is not what we need, although we shall surely be stuck with one, better one who is not so clearly self-promoting as Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
Yes, Mr. Gore is self-promoting, but he promotes something besides himself as well. I cannot, for the life of me, see that the other two do.
Liberal Democracy is the only cause in a Liberal Democracy that makes sense, the others shall doom us to become something else. I am not against change, far from it, I believe that real change is needed, but I believe that this change happen within the context of Liberal Democracy. Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson wrote centuries ago, and there is much in their works that needs to be changed (Locke and Jefferson made their fortunes from slavery), but their basic vision of society is the one with which we must operate, we are both morally and legally obliged to do so.
And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have been asked by many posters to elaborate my views on Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. My problem with each of them can be expressed in one word: populism. Mrs. Clinton with her bizarre voting record (banning flag burning) and Mr. Obama with his equally strange desire to woo conservatives seem out of touch with liberalism.
A politician is not what we need, although we shall surely be stuck with one, better one who is not so clearly self-promoting as Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
Yes, Mr. Gore is self-promoting, but he promotes something besides himself as well. I cannot, for the life of me, see that the other two do.
Liberal Democracy is the only cause in a Liberal Democracy that makes sense, the others shall doom us to become something else. I am not against change, far from it, I believe that real change is needed, but I believe that this change happen within the context of Liberal Democracy. Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson wrote centuries ago, and there is much in their works that needs to be changed (Locke and Jefferson made their fortunes from slavery), but their basic vision of society is the one with which we must operate, we are both morally and legally obliged to do so.
And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
You see weakness in Obama's wooing of conservatives. I don't. I see him strongly stating that he is religious, and just as strongly as he defends gay and lesbian rights. I see what he stands for and I think its a brand of strong moderation. He is very talented at getting people to work together, and that includes conservatives AND liberals. I think it makes for a very healthy brand of progressiveness. Obama has the HIGHEST approval rating in the entire senate according to one poll, and yet he is still 97th I think in seniority.
As for following a model laid out by Jefferson and Locke. What specific ideas of theirs were you thinking of when you said that? Jefferson's "Rebellion is healthy every 50 years or so?" or "We need to live in an agricultural based society as industrialism promotes laziness?" I am sure you don't mean those ideas, I am just goading you
I just think you are misunderstanding what you see when it comes to Obama. I wont comment on Hillary because I do not know enough about her to say anything REALLY inteligent.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Wait a minute, "morally and legally obliged" to follow Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson ? Can't I follow say.. Mill instead? With a touch of Nietzsche?
I would like to be free to choose the philosophers I follow!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
Dude, you freakin' quote Enjolras in your Wikipedia profile.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Wait a minute, "morally and legally obliged" to follow Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson ?"
You could follow other morally, but the laws of this country are based on the three I cite (Mill has been an influence, but a late one.)
"Dude, you freakin' quote Enjolras in your Wikipedia profile."
Enjolras was a liberal, not a populist. (actualy, he didn't exist, but he represents the liberalism of the Spring of Nations.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" He is very talented at getting people to work together, and that includes conservatives AND liberals."
If I may be allowed to lapse into populist rhetoric, Pas de replātrage, la structure est pourrie.
In seriousness, compromise can only work when there is ground to work on. The German Christian Democrats are social conservatives with whom we can work, American fundementalists are not. These people diasagree with us on the most important political issue, what it means to be human and who we admit into that fraternity. Liberalism is the a philosophy based on the Rights of Man, rights held unalienable. How, then, can we work with those that would alienate these rights?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Enjolras was a liberal, not a populist.
Dude was a populist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You've mentioned flag burning twice as proof of Clinton's populism. One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more.
And I'd like to see anything on Obama's voting record. As for his "wooing conservatives," so what? Dear god, he's actually reaching across the aisle to the opposing party and not being a partisan hack? The jerk! He's open about being religious, GOOD, it's about time a Liberal came along who wasn't ashamed of his religion or his politics, or at least didn't feel the need to sacrifice one for the other.
If you want a Liberal who only works with other Liberals, or who panders to his base, then you're part of what is wrong with the party, not what's right. Wooing conservatives isn't populist, and if it IS, then I guess there's something to be said for populism.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Obama has the HIGHEST approval rating in the entire senate according to one poll, and yet he is still 97th I think in seniority.
The cynic in me makes me wonder if sometimes the two aren't inversely related. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Obama has the HIGHEST approval rating in the entire senate according to one poll, and yet he is still 97th I think in seniority.
The cynic in me makes me wonder if sometimes the two aren't inversely related.
lol Bao, perhaps Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Dude was a populist."
There is a difference between being popular and being populist. Freedom of speech is, in theory, popular. And yet, populists try to abridge it in the name of such things as national pride.
"One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more."
And yet no pattern is needed. Leaders must be human beings, and yet we forbid them to be. This is proper, must not even Cęsar's wife be above suspiscion? In Mrs. Clinton's case, she also voted for the Iraq war, despite it being waged against Liberal ideals. Luther did not lost WWI, whatever Benedict said, and Voltaire shall not loose this one, no matter how much Benedict and Mrs. Clinton say it is so.
"He's open about being religious, GOOD, it's about time a Liberal came along who wasn't ashamed of his religion or his politics, or at least didn't feel the need to sacrifice one for the other. "
Absolutly, I admire the late Pierre Trudeau, a good Roman Catholic and a great Liberal, very much.
" then you're part of what is wrong with the party, not what's right."
I am not even in the party, and yet I am bringing it down. I have stated that there are those with whom we disagree but with whom we can work, and those with whom we cannot work. There is a difference between Adenauer and Hr. Dr. jur. Stoiber, and it is not just that the former is long dead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There is a difference between being popular and being populist.
Yes, I know. And Enjolras, as presented in Hugo's fiction, was both.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
"One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more."
And yet no pattern is needed. Leaders must be human beings, and yet we forbid them to be. This is proper, must not even Cęsar's wife be above suspiscion? In Mrs. Clinton's case, she also voted for the Iraq war, despite it being waged against Liberal ideals. Luther did not lost WWI, whatever Benedict said, and Voltaire shall not loose this one, no matter how much Benedict and Mrs. Clinton say it is so.
Alright then, I declare you an idiot. I don't really NEED a pattern of evidence to prove that you are an idiot, just need a gut feeling and out of context references to past historical figures to make it so.
She voted, as many Democrats did, for a resolution that gave the President power to use force if necessary. Whether or not she honestly believed that the President would wait before launching headlong into the war is something none of us will probably ever know, so assigning motive on your part is purely speculative. It's you guessing at her motives to prove a conclusion you already came up with. Not very logical.
And I just checked by the way, she DID NOT vote for the flag burning amendment. She attempted to introduce legislation in the senate that would have made it a law, but not a constitutional amendment. When that legislation was shot down, she voted against the amendment. So even there you're wrong.
Got anything else?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" She attempted to introduce legislation in the senate that would have made it a law, but not a constitutional amendment."
Oh, I feel so much better knowing that your candidate did not realize, or hoped that her voters would not realize, that flag burning can only be banned by an amendment.
"She voted, as many Democrats did, "
Argumentum ad populum is a well understood fallacy, and yet I am the illogical one? I do not claim to be perfectly logical, but I have no monopoly on illogic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Didn't read the text of the law, just reporting the facts, which is something you seem to have a problem grasping or at least responding to. The point is, she voted against the amendment, and you are wrong. I guess that's two points, still, there you go.
And that wasn't my argument, which you so neatly shunted aside. Deal with the actual argument, not just the precursor part that you have an easier time arguing against. You don't know what she was thinking when she voted for an authorization for the use of force and you know it.
You're wrong about the flag burning amendment, and you can't prove she voted for the war knowing full well that we'd be there not even a month after she voted for it. So I repeat to you: Got anything else?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
My question is, have you got anything. Why do you believe that Mrs. Clinton is the single best person in the running to be the de-facto ruler of the free world?
I don't think she is the worst, but she is far from the best. I like Mr. Obama much more, but still much less than Messrs. Gore and Richardson. Is this a crime against logic and morality?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said she was the best. I just don't understand where all the anger and hatred towards her is coming from, and I'm trying to find out.
I think she is smart, capable, and has a lot to offer. I too think there are better candidates out there, but I think that of the most well known names in the field, she's maybe the best.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I haven't seen any fire from Richardson or Bayh, and for all of the talk I've heard about Warner, I've yet to hear him say anything.
For me, the issues come down to political courage and wisdom. Gore, Richardson, Bayh, and Warner all seem to be lacking in one or both of those aspects. Give me Bill Bradley. Give me Howard Dean, but since I can't have either of those, I can proudly take Barack Obama.
While I don't agree with him in every way, the man seems leagues ahead, with respect to wisdom and courage, of any of the other contenders.
Regarding Hilary Clinton. I'd be more eager to vote for her a decade ago, now she just seems like too much of an insider.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I never said she was the best. I just don't understand where all the anger and hatred towards her is coming from, and I'm trying to find out.
I think she is smart, capable, and has a lot to offer. I too think there are better candidates out there, but I think that of the most well known names in the field, she's maybe the best.
I also don't understand why people get so worked up about her. Currently she fails my ports deal litmus test, but most of both the House and the Senate do that. Other than that, I can understand disagreeing with her politics, but I don't get where the personal ire comes from.
Of course, because of that personal ire she'll never be able to win a national election; so I rather hope she doesn't run.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"While I don't agree with him in every way, the man seems leagues ahead, with respect to wisdom and courage, of any of the other contenders."
I cannot surport him becouse I find he has little courage, and Mrs. Clinton has far, far, less.
"Other than that, I can understand disagreeing with her politics, but I don't get where the personal ire comes from."
From being known as the spineless wonder? Hillary Clinton is just an easy example of what politics has so often become: all spin and show with no substance. Her husband was also guilty of this.
Bobby Kennedy was the last politician both worthy and capable of election, we killed him, as we killed Socrates, Jesus, Ghandi and M.L.K. before him. Plato, writing after the death of only the first of these, was right: we always try to kill those who show us the light.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bobby Kennedy was the last politician both worthy and capable of election...
You're one of those, eh?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bill Bradley did everything right except get enough votes.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You're one of those, eh?"
One of whom? Bobby Kennedy admirers, yes.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't know about you, but I didn't kill any of those people.
Posted by GiantReturns (Member # 9349) on :
"I cannot surport him becouse I find he has little courage"
I dont quiet get what you expect out of Sen. Obama in reguards to courage. He's able to work and get liberal agendas through the republican controlled senate. I believe he is the new blood that liberal Demacrates are looking for. As a presidental or vp canidate it is too early for Obama; Only in his second year as a U.S Senator he could make a monster of a canidate in a 2012 or 2016 race.
With the Crisis in the Middle East it has most liberial politicians trying to establish foriegn policies and oppose president Bush at every turn. When they should be concentrating on Liberial core issues: Social Services, Education, Deficit, and Health Care (which 45 million americans dont have).
For those reasons I see a Clinton/Richardson as Demecrates best hope for a 2008 victory and ill give my reasons. Sen. Clinton may have some argueable voting on the lesser issues but on the big topics she's right on key. She has good plans on immigration and health care. With a running mate of Gov. Richardson who is well respected internationally(former U.S ambassador to U.N and several nominations for noble peace prize) and has the record of a true liberal. Richardson also gives the advantage of the Hispanic vote in key states like Florida, Nevada, Arizona(on a no Mccain ballet), and even a longshot Texas. There is also the relief of not having to deal with massive anti gay-marriage conservative turnouts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not entirely sure one way or the other than Richardson/Clinton wouldn't be a better ticket. Clinton is too polarizing. Putting her in the VP does a ton of great things. It pulls pressure away from people who don't want her in the Oval Office, it lets the experience of Richardson shine through, it allays fears that Bill Clinton comes along with the deal, I mean let's face it, who really cares about the husband or wife of the VP?
Furthermore, assuming they won reelection in 2012, it sets her up for a presidential run in 2016, perhaps with a more seasoned Barrack Obama as her VP. That can go every which way, but I think having Hillary take the backseat to Richardson is better in many respects, not the least of which is the fact that the ticket looks a lot more palatable to people across the political spectrum than it does with Hillary's name on top.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
McCain/Feingold... hm. Any of us might like to see such a ticket, but it would be a crime for us to air that opinion in mass media, if McCain gets his way and McCain-Feingold is expanded. (It already is, unless you form a "527.") Not that we'd go to jail: the government is now using prior restraint to censor political speech. No one would hear us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What is mass media?
The up and coming generation gets all their news from the internet, not billboards and TV ads. McCain-Feingold does nothing to censor the internet, nothing does.
We live in a world where YouTube can attract more viewers than an ad placed on Lifetime.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The up and coming generation gets all their news from the internet, not billboards and TV ads."
The up and coming generation still can't vote mostly, and even in my generation, newspapers play a big role, particularly news magazines and editorials in places like "The New Yorker." And "National Geographic" is the most influential of all.
"I don't quiet get what you expect out of Sen. Obama in reguards to courage."
The ability to be unpopular would be a first step, nobody with courage is universaly loved.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What generation are you part of Pelegius, that reads NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC more than they browse the internet? I thought you were a teen, not part of AARP.
I'm 22, most of my generation reads their news on the internet. I watch some CNN and CSPAN when I can, and read TIME once in awhile, but mostly I search out news on the net. Most everyone I know does the same. Anyone under 30 I think is in the same boat, I don't know about over 30 year olds.
18-30 isn't something to shake a stick at, it's a powerful voting bloc. A SMART politician would get them involved in the process by speaking to their issues. Lord knows we don't have many of those around.
As for your words on Obama and courage. That doesn't make sense. First of all, this is America, NO ONE is universally loved. Not our heroes, not our celebrities, and certainly not our politicians. Everyone has heard the phrase "The right choice isn't always popular." You seem to have missed the fact that the popular choice isn't always wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Obama isn't universally loved; indeed, I suggest you name one person who has ever lived (or thought to have lived by many) who is universally loved.
edit: to drive this point home, look at your own opinion of Obama, then look at the phrase "universally loved".
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It may be true that kewl people prefer Internet to TV (certainly that would be flattering), but many only get their news from TV.
FEC is also considering defining blogs as mass media and calling a post friendly to a candidate a "contribution," so they can regulate it. Maybe it will never happen. I never thought it would be illegal to criticize candidates in advertising, either.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"What generation are you part of Pelegius, that reads NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC more than they browse the internet?"
Maybe they just trust the former much more. We are not as naļve as sometimes thought, and can tell, just as easily as our elders, when we are being spun or lied to.
"You seem to have missed the fact that the popular choice isn't always wrong."
Indeed, but a choice must be made. The Democrats try to avoid anything as polarizing as a posistion. Currently, they stand for not being Republicans. Not particularly inspiring, but perhaps enough to win elections (I would vote against the Republicans even if I disliked the Democrats, shame election stats wouldn't make the distinction.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe they just trust the former much more.
Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic and the registered population of MySpace, I think it's safe to say that this "generation" does not exist.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic"
Almost universal, I know of few people who don't read it and have seen it in Buddhist Monasteries and Royal Yachts, as well as in every public or educational library. Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
<---Never read national geographic, and has read many, many Newsweeks. Maybe I'm the outlier.
[ September 09, 2006, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know of few people who don't read it
Oh, man. This almost brought tears of mirth to my eyes.
Pel, try removing the library and schoolroom circulation numbers from your "readership" statistic. And then, while you're at it, put them BACK in and compare to MySpace, which has over 21 million unique registered users (and over 70 million accounts). Even if the majority of those users are almost completely inactive, we're still looking at a number which dwarfs the most favorable statistic available to gauge the popularity of National Geographic.
Look, don't get me wrong, National Geographic is a fun read. But it's certainly not ubiquitous, especially among kids of your "generation."
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Wow. That National Geographic claim is so out of left field that I dont even know how to respond.
National Geographic? Really?
Hell, my friends are highly educated, highly intelligent fellows and none of them read National Geographic on a regular basis
Posted by RushFan (Member # 5245) on :
If Gore wins it'll be funny to see the jaws drop on the enviro crowd when he completelly ignores them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends on which part of the environment crowd. If you're talking about the "save the bears" people, I'm sure he will.
If you're talking about average tree huggers and supporters of clean air, not a chance he'll ignore them. But then, given your user name, I don't expect you to listen to reason.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"c. And then, while you're at it, put them BACK in and compare to MySpace, which has over 21 million unique registered users (and over 70 million accounts)."
MySpace is free and thus much more likely to have inactive members. It is also not a news source (N.G. isn't a typical news source either, but has commentary on many issues.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because the youth of "your generation" would much rather spend their money on a National Geographic than...anything else...
If you were going to pick a magazine to defend print media, you should've picked TIME or Newsweek. At least there you have some numbers to back you up, but I still don't think more young people read TIME or Newsweek than get their news off the net (or, I have to admit, television).
Posted by hugh57 (Member # 5527) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic"
Almost universal, I know of few people who don't read it and have seen it in Buddhist Monasteries and Royal Yachts, as well as in every public or educational library. Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
This reminds me of the woman in 1972 who couldn't understand how Nixon won the presidential election, when everyone *she* knew voted for McGovern.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
So your ivory tower must have its own pressurized atmosphere, right? Or is it all the way up in space?
Out of a hundred people I know and interact with daily, I would have a very difficult time naming five who might read NG occassionally.`
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Let's back off the National Geographic assertion. Pel isn't very good at admitting he is wrong, and nobody here believes him, but the thread topic was interesting.
(Currently working in Obama's office.)
[ September 10, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
", you should've picked TIME or Newsweek. At least there you have some numbers to back you up,"
Both Time and Newsweek have significantly lower rates of circulation than National Geographic. I admit that readership is not universal, but it is as close as any serious magazine gets, and probably higher among voters than the population in general, as non-voters tend to be less well educated than voters.
Take, for example, The Economist, a paper which has the power to bring down governments, yet has only a fairly small circulation. Its circulation just happens to include many, if not most, politicians, C.E.O.s and even editors of other papers. Nelson Madela and Henry Kissenger have both publicly endorsed it, as has Larry Olsen.
So, I perhaps should have said that National Geographic is almost universaly read by people who care about the world, and are thus likely to vote.
Seven Million readers in a huge amount, when you compare it to Newsweek's fewer than four million.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just for the sake of curiousity. How many of those seven million are American? How many of the Newsweek 4 million?
How often does National Geographic release a magazine? How often does Newsweek?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"How many of those seven million are American?"
All of both groups are, sorry, I should have stated that those numbers are not international.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
National Geographic is a monthly, rather than weekly magazine.
Newsweek is, obviously, weekly. Is that 4 million for each week? Can you prove that it's the exact same 4 million people reading it every week?
I don't even know why I'm arguing this anyways. National Geographic is about King Tut and Columbian Rainforests, not high politics in America.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"National Geographic is about King Tut and Columbian Rainforests, not high politics in America."
All isues are political. Enviormental issues, such as Columbian Rainforests and climate change, more so.
Edited to Add: and enviormental issues will be a big topic in th 08 election, really big.
Posted by RushFan (Member # 5245) on :
Lyrhawn, my user name is born from my love Of progressive rock's Rush not Limbaugh. Although you insulting Limbaugh's vast audience is pretentious. And common.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you actively listen to, believe in, and support Rush Limbaugh, I don't think it's unjustified.
I'm curious as to why you used the word pretentious though. Feel free to elaborate.
Posted by RushFan (Member # 5245) on :
I just don't like the idea of deeming millions of people unreasonable because of a choice of entertainment. He does air a talk show right?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Springer duked it out on Oprah, now that would be entertainment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it was only viewed by the world as useless entertainment, I wouldn't complain.
But far too many people accept the things he says as truth, and that isn't just entertainment, it makes him part of the process, and in myopinion, part of the problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: If Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Springer duked it out on Oprah, now that would be entertainment.
Would Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a couch in the middle of the brawl be part of the entertainment?
Now that I think about it that would be kinda funny if there was a comedy troupe that took famouse celebrity events/faux pas and juxtaposed them together in humerous ways.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Scary Movie 4? And yes, I watched it in the theatre, after I got my wife to tear me away from National Geographic. Man I just can't get enough of that mag
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)