posted
If the Dems (and I prefer overal) then I want Obama.
If by some fluke its the republicans then I want Mitt Romney.
Obama to me is that shining beacon of hope for our neighbours down south, a man whose principles will not be turned or corrupted by the political process but rather the light that will cleanse the process altogether and make it fairer and more transparent. Also I believe its hightime for a non-white president Obama's victory will send a clear signal that America's past is past.
Hilary Clinton I think deserves a fair chance at the vice presidency but I find she makes me a little nervous.
But if by some fluke the Republicans win, I beleieve that Mitt Romney based on his track record for turning uncessful buseness ventures around would make him an indespensible president, I am unawre of the other candidates to give a good idea for vp.
IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone thinks that the Democrats will easily win the Presidency. I don't think that will happen if Hillary is chosen to run. It might be close depending on what Republican challenger, but she is a liability. More than Republicans have expressed grave misgivings about voting for her.
As for Romney, many have said the same thing. However, I have heard many independants who don't have a "Mormon crutch" express interest if for nothing else than his background. Once he gets past the Republican base I think he will go moderate in his run. I can't say the same for the Democrats. Other than Gilliani, he does have the best potential to win against the Democrat contender.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, at present there isn't a single candidate running that I would like to vote for.
I'm also already sick to death of the whole thing. We have to put up with their constant bullshit for another entire year before the election.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard it bandied about a bit, or at least that Democrats are heavily favored, which might have something to it, but it's by no means a lock.
Much will depend on the combination of the people running. It's almost useless to make predictions until we know the candidates.
Obama is my guy, I'm hoping a strong early showing will give him the lead, the way Kerry knocked Dean out. Dean's lead in NH was twice that of what Hillary has over Obama, and he wasn't nearly as close in Iowa.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of hoping that Clinton does something atrocious and has to take herself out of the running. I like Obama a lot.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Everyone thinks that the Democrats will easily win the Presidency. I don't think that will happen if Hillary is chosen to run. It might be close depending on what Republican challenger, but she is a liability. More than Republicans have expressed grave misgivings about voting for her.
I would bet that there are plenty of Democrats who would end up voting Republican if Clinton is the nominee. I think she'd not only fail to get many Republican votes but also lose some Democratic ones.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think 8 years of republican screwups has essentialy given the Dems the presidency.
IP: Logged |
posted
That might be true with a phenomenal candidate, but with the possibles running right now, its going to be close.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think experience in national politics is indicative of a great presidency. As a first term US senator, Obama has as much national experience as JFK and Lincoln had when they were elected, and they were two of the greatest presidents we have ever had in my opinion.
Obama will make a great president because he will be uniquely able to get the votes he needs in congress to pass the important legislation that needs to be passed. Why? Because he is a uniter, not a divider like Hillary. Hillary's philosophy is to overpower the opposition. But she will not be able to get things done by ostracizing her opponents. That is the strategy Bush has employed and he can't pass legislation of children's health insurance or immigration or spending bills. Bush's politics have polarized the parties. I fear a Hillary presidency would do the same.
Obama takes a win-win approach and really listens to those who oppose his ideas to find ways in which their concerns will be resolved and they can work together. Obama is exactly what this country needs both domestically and abroad. He is uniquely willing to talk with our enemies. It was JFK's willingness to talk will Nikita "We will crush you" Kruschev that peacefully ended the Cuban Missile crisis.
I really hope Obama is elected. Yet, I fear an assassination attempt if he is. I think Biden should be the Vice President.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'm not voting.
I wouldn't want any of those other clowns to be President of a homeowner's association. Much less my country.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
They should make hilary clinton vice president, no one in their right minds would assasinate Obama if Hilary would take over afterwards.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to agree, and then I realized that it's those not in their right minds who we have to worry about and who are likely to undertake such a thing.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your characterization of Hillary has more to do with the Republican smear machine than with her actual work in the Senate. She's not a divider by choice.
Personally for VP I like Biden, or Richardson. Not Edwards, not Hillary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate Romney for the way he acted in office in MA. He was a horrible gov, and he denied contracts with state workers who had already been waiting for raises for 4 years. He was horrible, and I would rather anyone else gets the rep nomination.
And none of that has anything to do with his faith.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think 8 years of republican screwups has essentialy given the Dems the presidency.
The problem with that line of reasoning, though, is that the news from Iraq has been steadily improving for several months now. By the time of the election, the alleged "mismangement" of the war in Iraq by the Bush administration may not be such a big issue any more. Some people may even change their minds, and say to themselves, "Hey, maybe he was right. Maybe Republicans really do know what they are doing in such matters!"
Current polls now show that the major issue with voters is the domestic economy, not the war. And most people tend to give the advantage to the Republicans when it comes to fixing the economy--Democrats have a long record of making matters worse.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope Ron's right, and that Huckabee wins. Then I'll have an excuse to move back to Costa Rica while you all wallow in evangelicalism for 8 years.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That news of an improving situation is simply proves nothing more then the increasing effectivess of your governments ability to control information coming out of Iraq.
IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with Senator Hillary Clinton is that I do not want to risk further empowering a Clinton Mafia--let's call them the "Clintonistas." They have already taken over effective control of the Democratic party from the old Kennedy cabal. And paranoid conspiracy theory or not, there is a long list of suspicious deaths of people who were in a position to do great harm to the Clintons politically.
I have already made known my liking for former Gov. Mitt Romney. Like his father, he has a record of turning around the economic fortunes of struggling business enterprises, and he has a personal work ethic and commitment to excellence that I find very promising. A recent article in Newsweek had a lot of good things to say about him in these regards.
Former Senator Fred Thompson is interesting though, worthy of a closer look, especially since he has been rising dramatically in the polls in only a month, now second only to Guilliani. Here is a link to a discussion of his political positions in Wickipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson
I have always thought Guilliani's only reason for fame is that he happened to be mayor of New York during the catastrophic attack against out country on 9/11. His present status as front-runner in the polls is not going to last. He has been sinking as fast as Thompson has been rising.
I have long supported Senator John McCain, but I think he may be getting too old to be president.
So I am looking at either Romney or Thompson with interest in giving them my provisional support, right now.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That news of an improving situation is simply proves nothing more then the increasing effectivess of your governments ability to control information coming out of Iraq.
Come now. If the US government could control information coming out of Iraq in the manner you suggest, they would have done a lot better job of it. If they were going to "muzzle" anybody, they would have muzzled the inflamatory loonies who run Al Jazeera. We do have a free press in America, and American journalists are not the only journalists in Iraq.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Current polls now show that the major issue with voters is the domestic economy, not the war. And most people tend to give the advantage to the Republicans when it comes to fixing the economy--Democrats have a long record of making matters worse.
Right and wrong. The most recent poll I've seen finally has the economy firmly ahead of the war in Iraq in the minds of the people when you ask them what our most important issue is. More than half the country says we are in a recession. And the majority of the country, according to those same polls, trust Democrats, not Republicans, when it comes to fixing the economy.
Part of that I think is image. People believe the economy is doing poorly, Democrats are saying it isn't doing good, and Republicans are saying we're just fine, so naturally that's going to bleed some trust away from them, but in general people don't trust Republicans with the economy the way they used to, probably having to do with $5 trillion in new debt the Republican controlled Congress saddled the nation with in the last 7 years. But either way, this polling data helps, not hinders, Democrats.
Democrats can still shoot themselves in the foot with Iraq, but people like Murtha are taking the right track. Admitting that we're doing better does a lot to stymie the rhetoric you hear from Pres. Bush and Republican contenders for the throne who continually say that Democrats want to lose and that winning hurts them, while still pushing the line that a political solution is essential to an eventual end to the war. It's a smarter tactic, and more Democrats are jumping on board.
The other three big issues, other than the economy and Iraq, are healthcare (which more people trust to Democrats), illegal immigration (which is split pretty oddly, across both parties, but with favor to Republicans) and the war on terror (which despite what you might think, Democrats poll higher on).
If you break it down by candidate, the only thing that Rudy Giuliani polls higher than all his Republican candidates on is the war on terror, which only 10% of the population think is our most important problem. Not exactly a bright number for him. Huckabee is now statistically in a dead heat with Giuliani, which is a stunning come from behind, vaulting him ahead of Romney, McCain and Thompson. I knew he had good numbers in Iowa, but this new national poll is big press, and is also opening him up to big attacks from fellow first tier candidates.
I don't underestimate the ability of the Democrats to bungle a good thing when it is dropped in their laps, but if you want to do it just by the numbers, they have a pretty decent sized advantage on this race, and a good list of candidates, whereas 2004's list "read like a who's who of human crap."
English Al Jazeera by the way, isn't what you think it is, how often do you read it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And most people tend to give the advantage to the Republicans when it comes to fixing the economy--Democrats have a long record of making matters worse.
That's the perception, but not necessarily the reality. Note, for example, that stock markets do better under Democrats than Republicans. That many corporations prefer Republican leadership should come as no shock- it generally means lower taxes for the wealthiest citizens, less regulation of industry, and less oversight over financial dealings. Things that many business leaders and a certain class of economist would like to put forward as leading to a stronger economy-- despite not infrequent evidence to the contrary.
Under the current administration, along with the much noted deficit, the US dollar has fallen like a rock. This is the first time I can recall the U.S. and Canadian dollars being virtually equal; the Euro is stronger against the dollar than ever before, and my wife and I are presently pondering how long to wait to transfer funds back to our accounts in the United States, as the NZ dollar also seems to be getting stronger against the U.S.. One recent article noted that many formerly dollar-friendly tourist hotspots are no longer accepting dollars, and saw that as a grim foreshadowing. While that can't all be dropped at the door of this administration, it has happened on their watch, and many aren't going to readily forget it.
Whoever gets the post is going to inherit a mess in Iraq (which begins to look like a choice between civil war in the wake of our withdrawl versus a slow and gruesome ethnic cleansing under our watch, sans the economic wherewithal and professional class necessary to create a strong independent state), a diminishing economy, and a dismal international image. I don't envy them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: My problem with Senator Hillary Clinton is that I do not want to risk further empowering a Clinton Mafia--let's call them the "Clintonistas." They have already taken over effective control of the Democratic party from the old Kennedy cabal.
You are totally off-base on this one, Ron. I've been a member of that cabal for ages, and let me tell you, when we get together at cabal meetings, we're always making catty comments about Hillary's hair and shoes and makeup.
And, really, Ron, I don't recall ever seeing you at cabal meetings. How would you know what conspiracies we've been hatching behind closed doors. As usual, you're just talking through your hat.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be very surprised if Huckabee does not prevail. He has a couple of skeletons in the closet, but he doesn't majorly tick people off the way Giuliani and Romney do. I'm not sure why Thompson has stalled, but it's possible he could get rolling again.
I favor Obama over any democrat and several republicans but it's going to be a tough road for him.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would probably be flagged by the Department of Homeland Security if I were to be a regular reader of Al Jazeera. The articles and film segments from Al Jazeera that have been reported in the Western press all seemed pretty inflammatory and extremist, at times in really poor taste considering the potential for stirring up violence. Admittedly, that is what I was going by in my previous statement.
Tante, I am exceedingly glad that I am not and never have been a member of the Kennedy cabal. I was most relieved and thankful when Sen. Kerry went down to a well-deserved defeat. He has long been a sort of funny protegé for Sen. Kennedy--one I suspect Kennedy has always secretly laughted at as a bumbling wannabee.
It is the possible presidency of Sen. Clinton that I feel would actually be dangerous to the country. The former president Clinton engaged in "wag-the-dog" politics pretty brazenly, and Hillary has always seemed like the brains of the Clintonistas--who knows what she would do?
I don't know about former Gov. Huckabee. He used to be a Baptist preacher. While I grew up a Baptist before I became a Seventh-day Adventist on my own, and am fairly comfortable with the worldview he represents, I am also fearful that he would likely be the president who would sign a National Sunday Law bill, something we SDAs have been warning about for 150 years. So my feelings about him are mixed.
The only candidate I am really against is Ron Paul. He seems like he is basically an isolationist. He belongs in the Democratic Party.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just in case anyone else was tempted to hit Google up on that "National Sunday Law" out of curiosity
quote: National Sunday Law Marcussen, A. Jan Date finished: 1999-06-26
One is so rarely sent a book for free, that when it happens you just can't throw it out unread. The rather odd argument in this little evangelical volume runs as follows:
* The original Sabbath day was Saturday. * Somewhere along the way, the Church moved the day of worship to Sunday. * Therefore, the Church is a tool of Satan (and is in fact the Great Beast of Revelations), as are the various groups pushing for legal recognition of Sunday as a day of worship.
Surprisingly the search ""National Sunday Law" wikipedia" does not give any actual hits in Wikipedia except as a source for reference 14 in this excerpt:
quote: Eschatological expectations have prompted some radical and historic Adventists to practise so-called “newspaper exegesis”—an obsession with current events, particularly in the sphere of global politics—in a manner similar to many Christian futurists and dispensationalists. Illinois pastor A. Jan Marcussen has predicted the imminent rise of a global church-state alliance with the Papacy and U.S. Government as key players, along with other bodies such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. The resulting New World Order will, according to these theorists, precipitate the final events of history: the “sealing” of Sabbath-keepers, a universal Sunday-law, the seven last plagues and Armageddon.[14]
When questioned by the Catholic Herald, a representative of the North American Conference of Seventh Day Adventists stated that Marcussen's views are "extreme" and not supported by the Adventist church.[15]
Just in case you were curious...
Edit to add: The whole Wikipedia article is actually quite interesting. link It hurts the brain a bit if you read it as non-fiction, but if you read it as religious mythology its sheer vivid and fiery detail is quite engrossing
posted
Before he could sign a National Sunday Law, it would have to pass Congress. I don't really see that it's more or less likely to proceed than under Bush. Has such a law even been introduced to Congress?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
