posted
They did hint they would create a candidate. Do you think that such a 1-issue candidate could really pull enough votes to splinter the republican votes?
Regardless, I see a Democrat Sweep. The only passionate voters I see support Ron Paul, and I admit their support is...too many times counter productive (aggressive, rude, conspiratorial).
I am having a ball watching the republican party right now. As a republican (a fiscal conservative and a social liberal), I am enjoying watching the process of my party coming to terms with itself.
I am speaking to the influence of talk radio, Fox news, the military industrial complex, and Bush's expansion of the Federal Government in creating a new department and significantly expanding other departments.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I'd like to see them do away with the electoral college completely and let the peoples vote decide. If we encouraged everyone to vote for the person that really did best represent their personal beliefs on the role of govt we may actually see a swing away from a 2 party system. But with the electoral college in place I don't see how we'll ever navigate away from the status quo.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Ron Paul isn't going to make it past the primaries, and even if he did, I think he'd be buried in the general. He has a great stump speech, but he wants to dump what, 75% of the Federal government? Now that sounds awesome to a lot of Republicans until you actually stop and think about what is in that 75% and what that really means for Americans. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for a government that consists of the DHS and the White House.
Besides, that's really moot anyway, considering there's no way in hell that Congress would actually let him have ANY of that. He'd be one of the more ineffective presidents in history. And other than wanting to end the war and wanting to cut government to the size of a peanut, I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea.
quote: He was 3rd everywhere else, including Kansas.
Okay, I stand corrected (that's not the way I remember it from that year, but obviously I remember wrongly) Perhaps he won in my home precinct. (I remember an awful lot of talk about it locally at the time)
(I wasn't much into politics at that point in my life -- I had just become the single parent of 3 pre-schoolers and didn't really care much what was going on in the world)
Even then, he won, what -- 27% (?)of the vote here, which is a very strong showing.
Does ALL the electoral votes of each state go to the popular winner in each state? Or are they divided to reflect the percentages of the popular vote?
Tom asked:
quote: Out of interest, what did you people who liked Perot like about him?
I think people just liked the "new, different, radical" choice. They loved what they viewed as his fiscal sense -- hey, if he could run multi-million dollar company (they figured) surely he could whip our federal budget back into shape.
They liked his pretty charts and graphs and no-nonsense way of talking (even though he looked dorky).
At least those were the opinions expressed to me at the time. It had more to do with fiscal policy than any other issue.
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Democrats who think Hillary is their best hope. I kind of felt bad for them and wondered how drunk they were at the time. But that was back in June, and there's been 3 fairly solid months of Hillary boosting in the press.
The Pro-life plank is pretty important to me. I would probably burn my vote on a third party. I suppose Giuliani could appoint someone very conservative for his VP, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would suit. Unless they are setting this up to create such a being, and then have Giuliani unite with him. Assuming it's a him. Are there any viable female candidates who are identifiable with the Pro-life movement? There has to be a female Governor out there somewhere. Maybe. So then they'd have a woman on the ticket too.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does ALL the electoral votes of each state go to the popular winner in each state? Or are they divided to reflect the percentages of the popular vote?
If they were divided according to the popular vote then your system would be a form of proportional representation, but it isn't -- it's possible under the electoral college to lose the popular vote and win the election.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, how often is the VP nominee anyone from the race? Elder Bush was. Had Gore really run in the 1992 race? Cheney, Kemp, Quayle, Bentzen... who else? I'd say a VP nominee who ran in the primary is a relative minority since the age of television.
Voodoo economics. Good times.
P.S. I don't know how I wound up on this mailing list, but here's a piece from GOP USA on it. I almost feel guilty. But you know what? Pro-Life is the only issue that tips me onto the Republican side. I'm sorry the Republicans made the Congress filibuster proof. But they did, and now they will likely have to live with it. And all that Patriot Act power? It's going to be in someone else's hands now. Think next time, guys.
posted
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas might be a thought. She looks very "nice," she's both Southern and Western. Giuliani being from New York doesn't make him very endearing to much of the base, with the pro-choice stance being emblematic of that. I was looking for more of a large purple state, but there aren't any women in the senate for those that I can spot right off.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Second question:
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Let me preface by saying that I'd consider myself a liberal/progressive independant much more than I'd consider myself a Democrat, but that does mean I vote Democratic most of the time. Anyway, I don't really like Hillary that much and hope she doesn't get the nomination, but if it was her against just about any of the Republicans in the running, I'd vote for her. Of the front-runners right now I prefer Obama.
posted
My only point about Perot was that when the media put him forward as a contender, even someone who quit the race, reentered, and made lots of politically suicidal mistakes managed to get a good voter turnout. That tells me that people are interested in other choices. He did not get an electoral vote because he did not carry the popular vote in ANY state. Only a couple of states divide their electoral votes (it is up to the state to decide how to apportion their electoral votes).
I don't necessarily agree that the electoral college is what is keeping third parties out, although they are surely not helping. We have, in our history, been a three-party country. If it has happened before, it can happen again. I think we're waiting for two things to happen:
1. A truly inspirational third party candidate. (I have to admit, I have not seen one since I really started looking, so it's not like there has been one out there that the media has shut down.)
2. A serious and wide-sweeping problem, possibly economic, that takes the average voter out of their comfort zone enough to really want change.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only a couple of states divide their electoral votes (it is up to the state to decide how to apportion their electoral votes).
Who's that?
I don't know the two party system by itself is evil, or that any third party that came along wouldn't also be corrupted. Power corrupts? Kind of sad, but true. That was the point of the GOPUSA article- that Republicans have forgotten their roots.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The Pro-life plank is pretty important to me. I would probably burn my vote on a third party. I suppose Giuliani could appoint someone very conservative for his VP, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would suit.
Is it really all that important in a president? Other than a possible supreme court pick, I really don't see the next president having all that big of an impact on the state of abortion in the US. I mean, Bush is pro-life, and is pretty cozy with the religious crowd, but abortion is still very much legal in the US coming near the end of his second term. I know that this is an important issue ideologically for you, but I really don't see that it should matter all that much for a president.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Second question:
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Let me preface by saying that I'd consider myself a liberal/progressive independant much more than I'd consider myself a Democrat, but that does mean I vote Democratic most of the time. Anyway, I don't really like Hillary that much and hope she doesn't get the nomination, but if it was her against just about any of the Republicans in the running, I'd vote for her. Of the front-runners right now I prefer Obama.
--Enigmatic
That about sums it up for me as well (both in terms of political alignment and in terms of candidate choice). I don't dislike Clinton, but I don't especially like her either, and I think that her gaining the nomination is pretty much the only chance the Republicans have of winning the presidency in the next election. Her being the Democratic candidate wouldn't assure a Republican victory, but I think that it would galvanize the Republicans like no other candidate currently in the running on either side of the political fence would.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Ron Paul isn't going to make it past the primaries, and even if he did, I think he'd be buried in the general. He has a great stump speech, but he wants to dump what, 75% of the Federal government? Now that sounds awesome to a lot of Republicans until you actually stop and think about what is in that 75% and what that really means for Americans. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for a government that consists of the DHS and the White House.
Besides, that's really moot anyway, considering there's no way in hell that Congress would actually let him have ANY of that. He'd be one of the more ineffective presidents in history. And other than wanting to end the war and wanting to cut government to the size of a peanut, I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
My bubble is not burst because, altho I concede that it is very unlikely he will get the nomination, I do not see his campaign as a lost cause. Every vote for Ron Paul is a message to the Republican Party. Despite his chances, I am not ready to say a Ron Paul victory is not possible.
If he does not win the primaries and is persuaded to run as a third party, I think our current environment is the best environment for a third party candidate to win.
I also vehemently disagree with that is is a moot point if he wins because he would be ineffective.
Suffice it to say he understands that it takes the will of the people to have effective change in government. Representative Paul would need to persuade Congress and the people to adopt his vision. In that regard Dr. Paul would open up a lot of debate on where we are as a country and where we want to go.
The only policy he can really start implementing without congressional approval is troop movement. He could bring the troops home, get rid of our mercantilistic policies, and start a firestorm of debates. That alone is effective enough for me.
I believe our current system is unsustainable, and if he can shift our direction even a little, he will be a good president. Every other republican candidate seems to want more war (which will cause more debt, a larger government, and make us less secure) and increased infringements on our bill of rights.
quote: Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea. :Roll Eyes:
That is...not quite right but basically true. It is not the Gold Standard that he wants. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and have our currency backed by a commodity. It could be gold, or silver, something else or even a combination. As long as it is backed by something, the government will be restricted on what it can do because it can't just print money anymore.
You can roll your eyes, but our current financial system is a mess. We print billions of dollars to reward industry that is failing (like the current mortgage crises) and give it to millionaires. The money is more valuable when it is first printed, but once it it enters our money supply we get inflation and the poor and middle class get hurt. He calls it the "infaltion tax."
When we are not printing money to bail out businesses that should fail, we are borrowing the rest to fund wars and government policies--billions of dollars a month. It is unsustainable, and without a massive overhaul of our system, it can and probably will collapse.
Paul's approach might be wrong...might...but someone who can confront the problem unflinchingly will get the public, congress, and the senate debating and clarifying our world position.
What has propped up the dollar so far, absent a commodity like gold, is the fact that oil was traded in the dollar. More and more countries are starting to trade in the Euro, and more and more countries like Qatar and Vietnam are dumping the dollar. It is not alarmist. it is happening. I don't see any other candidate that sees a problem.
Continuation of spending more, creating more, borrowing more, and living off of credit more deserves a much bigger then any plan that addresses where we are economically as a country.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Colorado I believe narrowly defeated a proposal last year that would have divided the electoral votes there by percentage of the vote. And, I've heard rumors that California is considering such a move, which would be a huge blow to Democrats.
We need to get rid of the whole electoral college system. I can't believe we still have it after all these years. It's a stupid system in this day and age, designed for a time when people had less access to information.
Hillary used to be the candidate I really wanted to win, and even now I don't really have any problem with her and I wouldn't mind voting for her. I still fail to understand where all this negativity towards her comes from. To me it looks like groupthink. This big wave of negativity rolls out and everyone just gloms on to it, though I'm sure many people have legitimate reasons, few I've ever talked to can come up with more than "I just don't like her." But that might be all it takes.
I'll be voting for Obama in the primary this year. As far as I'm concernd, Hillary has experience, even if it is only seven years worth, whereas Obama has energy, drive and charisma, which I consider to be incredibly more important for the country at this point. Hillary is polling ahead nationally by like 15 points, but what matters are the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. If he can make a strong showing there, or better yet, win one of those states, then all bets are off, her national polling numbers don't mean anything.
Frankly I don't believe them anyway. I think Obama has a lot more grass roots support than the numbers show, but what really matters is whether or not people come out to vote in the primary. A lot of voters skip primaries, I know both my parents do, but they both always vote in the general. All the candidates have to push voter turnout, and that is where a large grass roots campaign like Obama's is better than Hillary's more superdonor oriented fundraising comes in as an advantage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember in high school (so, a long time ago) being told that in theory, your representative for the electoral college doesn't actually have to vote for the candidate that won. They might get in tons of trouble for voting against who they should, but they could do so and that vote would be binding. Since then, a part of me has been hoping that in a close election, a few people will decide to vote opposite, which might finally be enough to outrage America and end the electorial system.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember being taught about the electoral college and having it explained to me why the Founders came up with the system. It all seemed so logical, it made sense and it was intricate, so I bought it.
Fast forward seven years, I'm in High School, becoming alarmingly interested in politics, and I realize: "Wait. It did make sense. It doesn't now. Why on earth do we still have this system? This is horribly, horribly wrong." Ah the power adults have when teaching impressionable children. I think too few of us ever really break free and learn to think critically for ourselves.
In any case, Obama is my first choice, but if Hillary were to win the nomination, I could see myself voting against her depending on who the Republican candidate is. I'd most likely take Ron Paul or Huckabee over her. I know this election is not going to be that simple though *sigh*
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not enthusiastic about Clinton because of her stance on Iraq (which seemed only to change when it was safe), and the fact that, for me, she represents "politics as usual." Being elected because rich people owe you (or your husband) favours or because you make deals. I think that compromise of your ideals to get what you want has been too ingrained in her for too long.
I know that a politician needs some of that but it would sure be nice to see a little more idealism. And it would be nice to see someone elected that owes his success to a whole bunch of "little" people rather than a few "big" ones. It would give me hope that democracy can actually work.
posted
Saephon - If I might ask, why? Obama and Hillary have extremely similar platforms and plans for almost every issue. Yet if she were the candidate you'd switch your vote to a different party? That seems extremely odd to me. Just curious as to what she has done to make your dislike for her so strong.
On the electoral college -
People often get the history and purpose of the electoral college mixed up. Most people will say that it was a compromise to not let the small states be trampled on, and in the 18th century, there was some truth to this, but it's best to understand the context. The Founder were afraid that the population would be too underinformed about the candidates from other states, and would instead simply vote for their home state hero, which would be default mean that larger states voting for their own would mean only larger state candidates would win. You can find evidence for this in the original rules for the electoral college, which stated that electors had to cast TWO votes for president, and the second vote HAD to be for an out of state candidate.
This changed after 1800, when political parties (long shunned and feared as detrimental to democracy) took precedence and power in political circles. They changed it to one vote for president and one vote for VP, giving the House of Reps the power to break deadlocks. This change was in a response to state loyalties taking a backseat to party loyalties. At the time of this revision, no major consideration was given to making the electoral college a direct popular vote because A. The situation hadn't changed much, we were still very spread out and communication wasn't easy, and B. They'd just witnessed what a small segment of the population can do when they don't like the government in France, so they weren't a fan of the people at that moment. Also keep in mind that at this time campaigning was still considered extremely uncouth. They said, 'the office should seek the man, not the man the office.'
The idea of having electors would be that the most well informed of the population would be the electors, and those well informed electors would have information about all the candidates. Keep in mind people didn't get around much back them. A population of more than four million people was spread up and down a thousand mile Atlantic coastline, and communication wasn't lightning fast. Having a small number of people choose the president, but still having that small number elected by a popular vote, was considered a compromise that would keep democracy in tact and at the same time lead to smart, fair choices.
So look at the situation we have today. We have the internet, we have multi hundred million dollar campaigns that cross cross the country. We have air and car travel that blows anything from the 1800's away. We have television and radio, and most home grown candidates can't even get a foot in the door. There's no reason to keep the system as it is when you have a well informed population, and if anything, our current system discourages minority party voting since when in a state with a huge majority of one party, your vote doesn't much matter of all if you're in the minority.
It also severely rules out the importance of smaller states, as candidates throw money at the states with all the electoral votes, and ignores all those little three vote states. So for everyone that says today it gives benefit to the smaller states, I'd say it actually does a hell of a lot more harm than good these days.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama and Hillary have extremely similar platforms and plans for almost every issue. Yet if she were the candidate you'd switch your vote to a different party?
I'm in the same boat. It's because I believe Obama to have some quantity of integrity that Hillary lacks. This may be because he hasn't been in office long enough to prove me wrong, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given a choice even between that and four more years of Republican rule, White House stymied legislation necessary for the country, and for that matter bad ideas that they want to turn into legislation, I could swallow a little lack of integrity.
The issues are just too important, to me, this time around to risk letting a Republican in to ruin everything even further. The decisions made in the next four years could have dire world consequences, and even inaction could prove disastrous in the future, even worse, I think most Republicans would not only do nothing on these issues, I think they'd do the absolute wrong thing. I'm not willing to take that risk for another smooth talking Republican.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kmbboots and Tom probably put it better than I could have, but basically I've followed both of their strategies for reaching out to people, how they choose their words, their political background etc. I may be biased because I live in IL and have gotten the chance to know Obama better, but in any case I trust him more than any candidate right now. I believe he has the charisma and dedication and honesty I feel the White House has desperately needed for some time.
It may seem silly to some that I'd vote for another party because of Clinton, and I understand that completely. I'm sure my opinion comes off as goofy, maybe spiteful. I'm just trying to go with my heart on this one.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised that someone whose first choice is Obama would even consider voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee.
And why is it that almost everyone calls Clinton by her first name but all the other candidates by their last names?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I'm surprised that someone whose first choice is Obama would even consider voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee.
And why is it that almost everyone calls Clinton by her first name but all the other candidates by their last names?
I think it is to avoid confusion with her husband. If you say Clinton's policies, you could mean either Bill or Hilary.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Rudy has a chance of winning a general election. Even if a feasible third party conservative doesn't come out, Rudy will not be able to motivate the conservative base to come out and vote for him.
I know many conservatives who would rather a dem get elected than see Rudy in office. The worry is what Rudy could do to harm the republican party. Also, if a dem got into office, the republican party could try again in 4 years...if Rudy were to win the party would be stuck with him for 8 years.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incumbent presidents still have to win the primary. Historically it isn't that uncommon for a sitting president to be challenged in a reelection bid, and they've even been defeated before, though that is more uncommon.
Though I can see why you'd think that since we've only had two presidents in 16 years, and it's been a long, long time since an incumbent has faced a serious threat from inside their own party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I don't necessarily agree that the electoral college is what is keeping third parties out, although they are surely not helping. We have, in our history, been a three-party country. If it has happened before, it can happen again. I think we're waiting for two things to happen:
1. A truly inspirational third party candidate. (I have to admit, I have not seen one since I really started looking, so it's not like there has been one out there that the media has shut down.)
2. A serious and wide-sweeping problem, possibly economic, that takes the average voter out of their comfort zone enough to really want change.
"A truly inspirational third party candidate..." Hmmm. I know! Billy Jack will save us!
I agree that the Electoral College, though outdated, is a small factor in locking out a national 3rd party. I think the two current parties have been entrenched in power for so long they have rewritten all the state rules in their favor to make organizing a national 3rd party almost impossible.
One major factor is that there's no national ballot. Candidates and parties have to qualify for the ballot separately in each of the 50 states. The 2 existing parties have ready organizational, legal, and financial means to easily do this every 4 years. An upstart 3rd party, even one with a reasonable amount of popular support, has this as it's first major stumbling block, before serious campaigning can even begin.
I don't remember exactly what thread or link you are referring to, lem. About the gold standard, I think it's funny that Paul champions it when it's been abandoned for over 30 years. Not only do very few economists lobby for it's return, very few schools of economic thought champion it. Inflation is a problem, but the gold standard is not the solution. Besides, it's not something you could do unilaterally, most of the G8 and other top economic powers would have to get on board. There's no evidence they would.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last serious contender to be a third party candidate that comes to mind was Theodore Roosevelt when he formed the Progressive "Bull-Moose" Party. Perot made a dent, but nothing serious. TR I believe actually took states in the electoral college, though not good enough to actually win the office.
What did it take? First of all, TR had already been president so he had immense name recognition and high popularity. Second, he knew the ins and outs of the system, since he'd already used it to get elected. He had no trouble getting adequate funding. His insurgency candidacy had a real chance of winning.
But we haven't had anyone like that in a long, long time. It would take a striking figure from one of the two national parties to break out. A third-party candidate like the Greens or whoever couldn't do it, not in America. If Giuliani ran as a Republican in the General, it would take a Conservative powerhouse, nationally recognized, to beat both him and the Democrat, and win.
Ironically, under those circumstances Giuliani would have the best chance, especially if Romney were to win and Hillary as well. Social liberals who hated Hillary would see third party Rudy as a viable alternative to keep their politics safe, hard core Democrats would probably still go Hillary, and it'd be the same on the other side, with moderates for Rudy as well as people who couldn't vote for a Mormon, and everyone else for Romney. I think that race would really be contentious. But I don't in a million years see anything like that happening.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: One major factor is that there's no national ballot. Candidates and parties have to qualify for the ballot separately in each of the 50 states. The 2 existing parties have ready organizational, legal, and financial means to easily do this every 4 years. An upstart 3rd party, even one with a reasonable amount of popular support, has this as it's first major stumbling block, before serious campaigning can even begin.
This is very true.
One of the reasons I'm not quite convinced that it's time to get rid of the electoral college is that I'm not sure we're ready to give up our individual state identities. In fact, I would like to see more power revert to the states and localities. Gradually, over the past couple of centuries, the federal government has taken more and more power for itself and taken it away from the people. We have little say in National politics. We have much more say in local politics, but fewer and fewer issues that we can decide there.
One of the primary issues I want back in MY control is education. I am fed up with the national government having anything at all to do with it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Campaign finance reform. If candidates didn't have to raise zillions of dollars to buy TV time it would not only lessen the obstacles for third parties, it would help politicians climb out of the pockets of the wealthy.
posted
I didn't think of this, though it seems obvious now. NARAL, a major pro-choice organization, might consider endorsing Giuliani. That seems like a long shot at this point. But potentially NARAL could refuse to endorse the Democratic nominee if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Or help Giuliani in some other low-key way that is short of endorsement. I wonder if Giuliani might gain more pro-choice votes than he would lose pro-life votes in the general election? Some comments from NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/naral-prochoice-republi_n_67968.htmlPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "There will be further exploration of what is to be done," said Howard Phillips, the president of the Conservative Caucus, who participated in the Salt Lake meeting. "And there will be some discussion of who would be a viable independent candidate."
Conservative circles have been buzzing for weeks about the possibility of a third-party bid, which remains a heavily disputed idea even among religious conservatives. On Wednesday, longtime conservative leader Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, published a column laying out three requirements for a successful third-party bid: major defections of elected officials from the Republican Party, the financial backing of an independently wealthy individual, and the support of a major news organization, like the Fox News Channel or the Wall Street Journal. [...] Giuliani was the last major Republican candidate to accept the invitation to the Values Voter Summit. As a result, he is now scheduled to address the crowd just a few hours before religious and conservative leaders meet in private to discuss strategies for derailing his bid for the White House.
posted
What else does Giuliani stand for, besides pro-choice and pro-war on terror? Is he pro-environment? I had a chart once. Or maybe it was here on Hatrack.
The thing is, I'm anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, pro-environment.
Also, I had a slumber party with some democrats and they said I believe Nader's lie, that both parties are equally bad.
P.S. All other things being equal, if I am going to vote for a pro-choice candidate, it would be Obama. But I would wish I had a pro-life candidate option. Also, Obama as a running mate would not lure me to voting for Clinton.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone noticed how much media coverage there is of the primary races? It seems like there's a lot more now than there ever has been, and people seem generally more interested.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me they are starting insanely early, but that may just be me. But in races with primaries for both parties, this level of coverage does not seem atypical.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that might actually be a pretty smart move on Robertson's part.
I don't get the feeling that Giuliani isn't all that connected to the main Republican party and not tied all that strongly to the relevant principles, so he's likely to not care much about screwing them over by fulfilling the things that the Christian right want, like appointing Supreme Court judges to make abortion illegal. Robertson most likely got Guiliani to agree to something like that as a condition for his support.
The only other viable choice to achieve this would probably be Mitt Romney, but I think that would be less reliable and also he's a Mormon.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand why there's this drive to open and shut the choices before the process even starts.
P.S. Does anyone honestly think Giuliani can deliver New York to the Republicans? He might as well be from Wyoming.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good times.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
