posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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....
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
"...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.
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's US law, not international law. Iran sells a lot of their oil to China and Japan, and I'd imagine India.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
