Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:47 am
by ProgRocker » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:04 pm
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:38 pm
by waborat » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:18 pm
by FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:09 pm
by Steve Buffum » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:17 pm
FUDU wrote:My candidate is the person who will do what they claimed they would do...that person has yet to run for office.
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:00 pm
by FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:04 pm
Steve Buffum wrote:FUDU wrote:My candidate is the person who will do what they claimed they would do...that person has yet to run for office.Lyndon LaRouche?
by Steve Buffum » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:08 pm
by FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:01 pm
by municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:59 pm
by Indians88 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:19 pm
municipalmutt wrote:There is not a single candidate on either side that would get me to the polls. If this is the best of the 2 party system, we are fucked.edit: I consider myself pretty right wing, minus the RR, corporate welfare whores, and foreign policy nation builders. The left scares the shit out of me and I'm pretty liberal socially.Romney would have my vote but someone who believes the teachings of a person that thought the garden of Eden was in Missouri, Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, and there are people living on the moon kind of scares me a little.As an American you can believe whatever the hell you want to or follow any crazy cult you desire but I sure can question your judgment for believing crazy horseshit.
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:43 pm
by fundamentals » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:55 pm
by municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:57 pm
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:00 pm
fundamentals wrote:Swerb,Do you have a link to that exit poll info.? Last I saw was Clinton at 40% to Obama's 34%
by fundamentals » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:03 pm
by swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:13 pm
fundamentals wrote:Thank you Swerb.Not trying to threadjack here, but how do you guys feel about the influence of the poll information that is put out by the media? Any substance to it or just a tool to maybe discourage some from voting at all?
by leadpipe » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:05 pm
by municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:38 pm
Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.
by Indians88 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:41 pm
municipalmutt wrote:Thanks for the response Indians. My intent is not to turn this into a religious bash or even arguing against his claim to separate his beliefs from his politics. I am only pointing out that IMO his religion has some serious factual flaws in it that have been disproved using empirical evidence. I question the judgment of a person that believes things that have proven to be patently false. I do not question his right to believe what he chooses.
by leadpipe » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:33 am
municipalmutt wrote:Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.So the reality of the situation is that you are going to give your money away. The choice is only to whom. The poor who abuse the system and have no incentive to better themselves? Or the rich in the hope that some of it will trickle back down to you?
by consigliere » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:18 pm
Swerb wrote:In my opinion, the one on the Washington Posts website is the most thorough and really helps best define who your preferred candidate should be based on your views.Takes a little longer than some of the others, but it's good.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... idatequiz/
by mattvan1 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:37 pm
by General » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:01 pm
Lead Pipe wrote:I'm still waiting for the candidate that addresses things that really matter to Americans.Remember, years ago, when Ross Perot brought out his little charts and woke everyone up? Not saying the guy was presidential worthy, but God Damn if the things he brought up which effected each and every one of us hasn't been swept under the rug by politics as usual.The National Debt is still there. The Education system, which was poor then, is still deteriorating. He was spot on about NAFTA, and those effects are still being felt today, only stronger. And a hundred other things.Most importantly, he stated that this generation (at the time) would be the first in American history to leave it's children worse off. Well, now we're into the second and it is twice as poor.Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.
by skatingtripods » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:23 pm
by dpdad » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:41 am
by swerb » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:54 pm
by skatingtripods » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:57 am
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:15 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:This week will be very telling. If Romney can't win the state his dad was governor in (Michigan) and Thompson fails to win South Carolina, it will be a three-horse race with McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani. If Giuliani doesn't take down Florida, he's done for. Then it's up to JMC and Huckabee for the nomination.Although Rudy would likely be the best candidate to win the Repubs the office in the general November election, if he consistently takes 3rds and 4ths, they can't rightly nominate him.As a very strong conservative, my concern is increasingly growing that the Dems are going to win in November.
by skatingtripods » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:51 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:McCain or Huckabee are the nightmare scenario for me. I'd probably end up voting for Hillary Clinton over Mike Huckabee if it came down to it. I'd have to take a really long shower to wash the stench off. Problem I have with Huckabee is he's too much of a populist and is a goober when it comes to foreign policy. I don't trust him at all when it comes to national defense and that's a huge priority. While I despise Clinton's stances on domestic issues (healthcare, taxation, etc), I do believe that when it comes down to it that she'd be a warhawk no matter what she's saying now to get elected.
I like Romney the best and don't think losing Michigan does him in at all. Michigan is not winner take all AND it is an open primary where Democrats and Independents can vote in the Republican primary. With the Democrats largely out of Michigan, many may move to cause mischief on the Republican side. Even down here in Florida where the primary is closed, we've seen Democrats switch party affiliations in an attempt to select the easiest Republican to beat in November. They're flocking to Mike Huckabee.
For me, either Guiliani or Romney are the best choices. I'm working down here for the Romney camp as we work our way towards Jan 29. It's currently a four-way tie in Florida and we are a winner take all state for the delegates. Romney and Guiliani are the best organized in the state and I think that will help both significantly.
by jfiling » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:46 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:57 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:What's wrong with McCain?
I'm not a huge Huckabee fan either. I'm in the minority as a Republican (I'm agnostic) and I just think that Huckabee would be too blinded by his religious background to effectively lead in moral dilemmas and dilemmas against other religions (though history has shown that religious warfare is very frequent). Huckabee is no doubt the most fluent speaker remaining for the GOP, but I think that there are quite a few grey areas in his positions on things like immigration and trying to use diplomacy instead of military force so as not to look "arrogant". The fact is, our major enemies are not interested in being diplomatic with us. And if they are, it's just a big facade to get us off their ass.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter what. I don't care if Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination.
I think Romney is dead in the water if he fails in Michigan. First off, that would be two midwestern states that he has lost. Second, his only real hope after that is California. He won't win in Florida, he has very little shot in Texas, and he probably wouldn't win Ohio.
I agree, however, with where you say Michigan is wide open. It certainly is. Michigan probably votes Democrat in the November election anyway, so I can't see the GOP putting a lot of stake in Romney based on a good performance in Michigan.
I also agree with you saying that Huckabee is the most beatable Republican. Those tricky bastards down in Florida. Setting everybody up for this election with the voting problems in previous elections.
Giuliani's strategy has not worked ever before. He may be the first to make it work. I have a very open mind about Giuliani. Many people have questioned how conservative he is by his policies in New York City with gun control, immigration, and allowance of civil unions. Even still, he's not a stupid man. He knows that his policies need to be widened out when they are for the country as a whole. If he wins, though, it will be on his foreign policy views and that alone. Those arguing about him just being a mayor, well, New York City is a country in and of itself. Surely, he will have a significantly larger jurisdiction if he were to become President, but leading a city like New York isn't a bad precursor. He does have Washington experience, people tend to overlook that.
Props to you for being active in a campaign. That's the beauty of democracy right there.
by skatingtripods » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:07 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:There's a laundry list. I hate the McCain-Feingold bill that negatively impacts free speech through political contributions. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bills were far too lenient. I will not call them amnesty like others, but I do not like the idea of extending permanent Z visas to current illegal aliens that have no expiration and no incentive for pursuing citizenship and learning the language. He still supports giving social security benefits to illegal aliens for time spent in the country illegally. He also did not support the Bush tax cuts and would probably be in favor of increasing taxes on the high income bracket - a bad idea since that is where investment in jobs and technology comes from.
He also did not support the Bush tax cuts and would probably be in favor of increasing taxes on the high income bracket - a bad idea since that is where investment in jobs and technology comes fromI'm also sure that McCain would not consider cutting the corporate tax rate, currently tied for Japan for the highest in the world. It is effectively 35% and incentivizes either moving things offshore or playing with the books instead of creating a more open, honest environment. Same thing on the top end of the income tax brackets. Rich people can hide money and so can companies. You need to discourage that with a low tax rate that will encourage growth. Take a look at Ireland's growth and their ultra-low 12.5% tax rate.
McCain is also unlikely to work for change with the EPA and that also costs us money and jobs. My uncle is a high up for Dow Chemical and recently told me about how difficult it was for them to build a new plant. They had to have another company build the plant for them and buy the new plant from them, costing them 50% more than just building the plant under current EPA regs. If the regs were streamlined I would guess that manufacturing companies could cut prices in half at many plants.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, blocking the confirmation of strict constructionist judges on federal benches that only care about what the Constitution says and not how much they can read into it. Many on the bench currently are a lot like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. She has publicly said that she uses her feelings on issues above the actual law. These are not the kind of people that should be judges.
I agree there. As someone who identifies himself as an evangelical, I'm not a fan of Huckabee. I think he's utilized identity politics too much, running on his evangelical status almost entirely in states where that would play. We've been getting a lot of that down here.
I didn't like him calling US foreign policy "arrogant". Aggressive, certainly. The guy has basically said that the only reason Iran is a problem is because we haven't been talking with them.
Huckabee strikes me as a guy who believes that all the world's problems can be solved through talking. That sounds a lot like Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain, believing that Hitler could be appeased and conflict could be prevented. Sure, we could let Iran destroy Israel, the lone bulwark for sanity in the Middle East, but then they'd want more. The mullahs in Iran are truly nuts, believing that they can get the 12th Imam to make an appearance if they cause a worldwide catastrophe. We need to talk to the moderate Iranians who are striking and protesting throughout that country. America is not unpopular with the youths in Iran - we need to encourage revolt against the regime there.
It largely depends. If McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney split up on delegates then there will be no clear winners and someone will have to broker a deal at the convention. I know Romney's camp is well aware of Convention rules and could play that card.
I'm not sure if Michigan will go Democrat. Romney is a guy who may be able to pull that state out. His father still is fondly remembered there. He has the right pedigree because he father headed AMC during the Rambler days. He is really the only guy out there who can claim to be a friend to the American auto industry and that will play big. I like his positive message about not giving up, that we need to invest in technology and work to find ways to lower cost for US manufacturers to encourage increase in manufacturing in the States.
There are a lot of tricky bastards down here. It is a statistical dead heat between McCain, Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee. We're working hard for Romney throughout the state. We've got buses and cars ready to go to get people to the voting booth and we've got a lot of people committed to Romney. Michigan will play down here in Florida. A Romney win would probably hurt McCain, especially if Thompson or Huckabee take South Carolina. Governor Romney may take Nevada. That could swing to Romney's favor. Then it'd get interesting. Romney will take Vermont, Massachusetts, and Utah on Super Tuesday - all winner take all states. California will be a big pickup for everyone because delegates are decided by districts. It'd take probably five or six votes to win Nancy Pelosi's district in the Republican primary.
My hope is that one way or the either we get a ticket with Romney AND Guiliani on it. Guiliani puts New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in play - and it is very possible that a Republican could pick up Lieberman's endorsement this time around. That'll play in Connecticut. Romney would put Massachusetts in play and could also pull Vermont and Rhode Island. His ties to Michigan would help there.Rudy might also be able to swing some votes in Philly, sending Pennsylvania into their column.
There's also California. They're voting on a measure to split up their electoral vote. The way they're doing it would give the Republicans 20 extra electoral votes from California.
Romney and Guiliani both are well liked here in Florida and Jeb Bush will back either candidate - Jeb is still hugely popular here. The major concern would be them being out of touch with the rest of the SE due to their Northeastern backgrounds, but I doubt Texas, SC, NC, Georgia, etc would swing to Clinton. They might if it were Bill, but not for Hillary.
It's been a blast. Done it before more locally. I'll probably work for whoever gets the nomination, but I'll be more enthused if it is Romney or Guiliani. I think their executive experience will play well against the opposition. Obama is a first term Senator with no executive experience. Clinton's best playing card is that she is married to a former President. Edwards is a blood sucking lawyer known in medical circles to be one reason why malpractice rates have gone through the roof.
I think executive experience will matter in this election and a Romney/Guiliani ticket would have a lot of it with the ability to steal some electoral votes in the normally blue NE.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:43 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:Guess I asked you a loaded question, eh?
I agree with you. I want an extremely hard stance on immigration. The only ones with a very strong stance on the question of illegal immigration are Romney and Thompson. I like Fred Thompson, but I just think that he's not Presidential. I love his dry humor, but he entered the race too late and he's not a very fluent speaker at all whatsoever. Giuliani's a good, strong speaker, despite the little hitch in his voice.
Back to immigration, I am a realist on the subject, too. I want all 12 million illegals deported ASAP, but I know that's pretty unrealistic. I mean, that's a lot of people that could be harbored in any number of sanctuary cities, houses of relatives, houses of sympathizers, etc. Everybody has the same stance on those who have committed crimes. They should be extradited to prisons in their former country immediately. The task of finding all of the illegals is monumental and could probably be "needle-in-a-haystack" at best. Any number exceeding 40% would probably have to be sufficient for people like us.
As another note, I agree that illegals should receive none of the benefits that we as Americans receive. For me, that also includes public education.
I think that cutting taxes is very necessary for any Republican who takes the office. I don't think that the high income individuals should be taxed any more sharply. A large amount of these people did work for their money and are the best in their field. It's just like athletes. If you are the best, you deserve more money.
The high tax bracket for companies does endorse outsourcing in order to cut costs. That I certainly agree with as well. In this day and age, and as an Ohio resident, I understand how important it is to keep as many jobs here as possible. My father's been a steelworker for 28 years and he's gone through three different companies at the same location. ArcelorMittal is a worldwide titan in the industry. Luckily, the plant that my dad works at produces and ships more steel per manpower than any other plant in the world. With results like that, he should be safe with his job. Many other people don't have that luxury.
While I support big companies, I think that, as you do, tax breaks and cuts are necessary to prevent outsourcing. It is about making money, but money can be made while preserving jobs. That said, states need to be more adamant in providing breaks for these companies. Federal taxes are one thing, but states, especially like Ohio, are more than dependent on the slowly-dying manufacturing sector.
I really hate the EPA. I'm aware that it's necessary to be careful with emissions and help to provide some regulations, but it is absurd. In a country that is growing more and more dependent on foreign fossil fuels and materials, the standards do need to be lowered. Once again, EPA reorganization will do what I alluded to above. It will cut costs for companies to build new plants and be able to cut some prices, thus allowing more jobs to stay.
This isn't just McCain though. This has been done throughout the history of politics. I agree, though. The law is the law. This is again, why I'd be concerned with a person like Huckabee, or even Romney, being in the office. Religion holds so much precedent in those two, more than the others. This isn't to say that Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson don't have religious affiliations and follow their moral code, but they aren't to the extent that the other two are.
By and large, that's his real chance to get in. Giuliani, probably the best hope in the mind of party strategists, has very few cohorts in the religious right. Huckabee's best shot is to get the votes of some of these evangelicals and get the economic conservatives on his side.
He has no clue with foreign policy. Like I said, diplomacy is not the way to deal with people who don't believe in the American system of democracy. They hate our ideals of equality and rights for women. Let's face it. We shouldn't associate with those known to be heavily influenced by radical Islam and a strong hatred of American society and ideals. It's never going to be beneficial and it only looks weak.
That worked out well for Chamberlain. Churchill was the best thing to happen to Great Britain during that time period.
I don't understand the argument of people who think that it is a good idea to just up and leave the Middle East, thinking that peace will somehow sustain itself. I'd say that history is a pretty good gauge of that. We left Germany to fend for itself after World War I. No explanation needed of how that turned out. After we aided Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, we abandoned them with our weapons and our military tactics. We're paying for that one now.There are no conceiveable benefits to leaving Iraq as unstable as it is now except for the saving of the lives of our soldiers. Other than that, it's just going to create future problems for the generations that will follow.
That is a good take, but I still don't think that it can happen. Romney is too much of an artificial candidate for me. First off, he looked like he was manufactured in the John F. Kennedy school of physically looking like a President. Second, I have never been impressed with Romney in any of the debates. I just thought that his only way to talk was to throw shit at somebody else and then respond after they made their points. It just seemed like he wasn't informed enough on their position to offer his own before he could have it reiterated to him. Once again, too, his Mormon faith bothers me. Whether it would affect his Presidency or not, it's just one of those things that is disconcerting.
With so much of the issue on Michigan on the economy, I think Huckabee wins there. Like I said, he's probably got one of the better economic policies because he's so deficient on foreign policy.
This is such a difficult year for us Republicans. There are no clear cut front runners at all. I pretty much agree with everything you have said except for Nevada. I don't know how I feel about Nevada's importance. By and large, it has very few real voting trends in terms of the country.
A Florida loss is crippling to McCain. Romney has the most to gain and lose there. Huckabee's camp couldn't have been too expectant to win Florida. Rudy's done for if he doesn't win or at least finish second in Florida. A shame for me, as he's my favorite candidate right now because he hammers home my biggest concerns, while being mostly like me on social issues. His immigration policy is sketchy at times. But like I said, when facing the country as a whole instead of a city compromised of a large portion of immigrants, it's bound to morph into something that is more strict on immigration.
This is all well and good for the states you mentioned. However, it's not the ideal conservative ticket. It completely abandons the south. If Romney, or Giuliani, were to get the nomination, I think a southerner as VP is absolutely essential. I have a theory that if McCain got the nomination, his VP would be Lindsey Graham, a senator from SC. That's a much better pairing for the GOP than a Romney/Giuliani ticket.
This is assuming Hillary is the nominee. Barack has a better shot. He can absolutely run the table on the young voters. He'll be a poster child for minorities and get a lot of their votes. The key vote in Texas is the Latin vote. That needs to go Republican for sure.
I agree with all of the above, except Romney. I'm still a Giuliani/McCain man first. But any Republican is light years better than Hillary or Barack.Clinton couldn't even keep her husband loyal. Forget running a country, she can't handle a marriage.
This last note: the American south > the NE in terms of importance for the Republicans. I'd be worried about the south vote if that were the ticket.
by skatingtripods » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:34 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I think Rudy is also very likable. He's a guy you could imagine chatting with. I really like Romney and have met the guy (played flag football with him prior to the Florida CNN debate a while back), but in public appearance he does appear to be a little out of reach mainly due to his polish and his record. The guy has practically turned everything he's touched to gold - it's easy to feel small in comparison.
I agree. I like Romney's plan of a controlled withdrawal essentially where he doesn't deport people and instead attempts to take certain issues into account, give people time to set their affairs in order, and leave by a certain time. His is a tiered system that would allow them to apply for a visa after they return to their home country, but they'd be given no preferential treatment. Those in line before them will get visas before them.
We really need to secure the border and clean up our legal immigrant issues. It's difficult for highly educated, highly skilled people to come here. That needs to end. There are a lot of people in Europe that hate the socialist states and the rise of radical Islamic youth that want to come here but it is so difficult for them to become permanent residents.
Look at Canada and Belgium as examples.
Agree. I have no problem giving benefits to those here legally, but I don't want to do the same for those that broke the law in coming here. I know Mexico sucks economically, but they just dump people on us instead of trying to solve their own problems. I truly do feel bad for those caught in the middle, but the law is the law. Just because you're in bad straits gives you no right to break the law.
Agree 100%. I have suspicions that many of the Democrats in leadership are "old money" people who like the high tax bracket to prevent many from joining their elite status. I could be wrong there, but I see no reason to penalize someone for doing well. Too many think the government needs to stick it to successful people. Those same people often are unwilling to put the amount of work in to take home the big bucks. There's a lot of sacrifice involved. It means you don't always watch the movies, football games, etc that you want to watch. The idea is that you have time to do that after you've done the work, years down the line.
That's great to hear. I really would like to see a resurgence in steel here in the US along with other industries associated with it. I'm a huge domestic car guy and would like to see us incentive electronics manufacture.The US factory worker is the most efficient in the world, but government disincentives those kind of jobs right now. We need to work with domestic and foreign companies to get more goods made here. For one, it gives better oversight. Most big companies have a strong presence in the US. You're less like to get lead toys, etc here AND the government shouldn't be breathing down your neck like in China (in theory anyways).
Agree. What's happening to Ohio, Michigan, etc is really killing me inside. Those states have so much to do with their own issues - nearly as much as the Feds. The Ohio tax rate on businesses is high and then there's the state income tax. The state also has more bureaucracy for environmental issues and gives few breaks to business. Why not give some property tax reductions? Why not create laws that create more open shop environments? Living in the south, I have no love of unions at this point. They've done well for workers in the past, but lately I think they've been an impedance. Businesses need to be given an easier time in this area without screwing over the workers in the process.
I think the EPA is largely unnecessary in the modern era with a 24 hour news cycle that people can easily access online. Companies need to be forthright about waste disposal, exhausts, etc. This can be managed by having them post this data online. I seriously doubt big manufacturers will be able to get away with mass pollution in this day and age. Everyone wants clean air and water and that means that businesses want it to for a better image. I think it is good that more companies are conscious of this, though I am skeptical about how much of a crisis "global warming" is (I think there is some warming but that it is likely cyclical - Earth's temperature is always in flux and we're going through some warming after a long term cooling). I am at least glad that companies care about their image when it comes to the environment.
I think it is less of an issue with Romney based on my dealings with Mormons. It is an issue with others because it is considered weird (and I agree with those assertions, I have Mormons in my family and thought about converting in high school). Huckabee I have greater concerns with, especially with him saying today (apparently) that he wants to amend the Constitution to acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate law. I love the Bible and study it regularly, but I do not believe it has any place in a civil government. Christianity cannot be forced down peoples' throats. While I do believe that the Judeo-Christian traditions help to form our government, that does not mean that everyone here must adhere to the Bible - that is actually a very unbiblical thing to do, believe it or not.
That is his best hope, but I don't think it's happening. Many evangelicals like Romney. Some do support Guiliani (Pat Robertson, for instance) and others like Thompson. It played in Iowa and might in South Carolina. I could see Georgia, maybe. It will largely depend on what happens before Feb. 5. With Romney winning by 10 points tonight in an OPEN primary, we could be seeing the beginning of a surge for him. I hope that's the case.
Agreed. We need to also be sure to finish what we start. One of the reasons why bin Laden and others went after us is because of our apparent weakness. We pulled out of Vietnam and left millions to be brainwashed or killed. We didn't respond to terrorist bombings in Beirut and were weak against the Iranians. We didn't finish off Saddam Hussein the first time. An America with no will to fight for what it believes in looks very vulnerable.
Winston Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century. He sounded the warning long before 1939. If the world had listened to him then Hitler would have been a footnote to history. Neville Chamberlain prevented the French from stopping Hitler's takeover of the Rhineland. Churchill said that the Treaty of Versailles was too nasty towards the Germans from the getgo. Fortunately he kept Britain afloat with our help. WWII was the finest moment thus far for the English speaking peoples, especially here in America. We saved the world from cruel despots and then the US took Japan and Western Europe on our backs and rebuilt them. I'm so proud of that.
I heard a startling fact today. In 2005 there were 9000 people of military age (18-34) murdered throughout the US. That's more than double the amount of deaths in the military since 2001. I think we need to focus more on concerns about those who stay here.
I think he's done well in the debates. The focus groups have really liked him a lot, but I can see why some are turned off. I do believe that Romney is more concerned about his own positions at this point. He has stressed the records of his opponents, but it can be difficult to pin down everyone's positions in a primary season.
Huckabee did horribly tonight in an open primary while Romney did very well. I think Romney's ties to business and his family experience with the automotive industry will play well in the Rust Belt. He's the one guy who can actually claim some affinity for line workers on a more personal basis. While his father was in charge of AMC he was well liked and Romney clearly wants American manufacturing to succeed, he just doesn't want to create protectionist policies to do so.
True, but it is really about momentum at this point. I'm not sure where South Carolina will go, but a strong showing from Romney and a win in Nevada and Michigan will be what leads into the Florida primary. That momentum could propel Mitt in a tight race.
Second place for Rudy in Florida would hurt greatly if this is going to be a battle of delegates because the #1 guy gets all the marbles in Florida. Even with the delegates cut in half, we've still got quite a few down here as the fourth largest state in the nation.
Lindsey Graham is another Senator I do not care much for.
There has been talk about our Governor, Charlie Crist, being a potential VP for Romney or Guiliani, but he just got into office last year. Jeb Bush has also been talked about, but I don't think the country will respond well to another Bush on the ticket, though Jeb is still very popular down here.
You could see Romney possibly name someone like Georgia's Governor, Sonny Perdue, as a VP candidate. That would open up Guiliani to be named as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense and I'd be find with that. He'd also make a great Attorney General.
Obama would make it a different game, for sure. Romney and Guiliani both have the Executive experience that none of the Democrats have, but that might not play with Obama.
Clinton, IMHO, is the easier target. She's got 50% of the country that dislikes here from the getgo. It's hard to win with so many people hating you from the beginning.
I've always thought it was a marriage of convenience for her. She's always known that she didn't have the personality to win on her own and Bill is oozing with it. The guy is a masterful politician. I don't like him much either, but I'll give him that.
I'm not sure. I would be more worried against Obama... maybe. The South votes more on platform than other places. A lot of people down here are Democrats that vote Republican because the Republicans are more traditional nowadays. If Hillary is the candidate, I think her healthcare solutions would scare people down here. They won't confuse her with her husband. Granted, Perdue would be a better choice to really firm up the Southern vote for either candidate. Having someone from Georgia on the ticket would pull weight in the South due to Atlanta being the hub of the SE.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:25 pm
That's one thing I have always said. It's a shame, but the fact that only some 3200 or so soldiers have died is pretty remarkable. Think of previous wars and the severe loss of life. For a series of conflicts that has gone on over 7 years, less than 500 soldiers a year losing their lives is pretty small in comparison to other conflicts. It is only magnified because of the controversiality of the war.
This is where we differ. I think Romney has been more concerned with being different from anybody's policy than really having his own. The only thing I remember about any of Romney's policies is that his health care isn't favorable to my opinion on health care. That's how pedestrian the rest of his policies have been to me.
I am surprised with how poorly Huckabee did. I guess the state was just disenchanted with a preacher from the south. These primaries really show how different the two sections of the country are. I was pleasantly surprised to see how McCain did, in a state where I pegged him for third place.
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said. "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."
It's going to be interesting. Even still, the ultimate decision comes down to the party, right?
Rudy's eggs are all in one basket. Conversely, if he can win Texas, Florida, California, and Ohio, he's in good shape. I think that the party would like so much more favorably on that than someone winning Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, or any of the other states. They would probably feel that a guy like Giuliani could hold his own in the south and midwest enough to beat out the Dems.
My girlfriend is originally from South Carolina and she speaks volumes about him. Even still, we greatly differ on our candidate. She's still a southern Republican and likes Huckabee. She also likes McCain. Meanwhile, I like Rudy and McCain.
I'd be afraid that Florida's past voting foibles and some of the scandals down there with that one Congressman, his name escapes me, would turn some people off. Even still, I think a southeast Republican, not from Florida, or a midwesterner would be the best hope for a VP.
I'd be very content with Rudy in any of those positions.
Of course the biggest argument on Giuliani is, can he go from mayor to President? Executively, yes. And like I said, he had government experience under Reagan. I know you're not a fan, but don't sell out Huckabee on executive experience. Though it's a small, sparsely populated state, he has that experience too.
I really began hating her when I read in one of Bill O'Reilly's books that she took campaign donations for her seat in New York and published a book with them. Now every time I hear her voice, I want to punch her in the testicles (and we know she has them).
How often have Republicans honestly won the NE? It may, in all honesty, be the VP who determines if the Republicans get in or not.
Good chat with you, Mac. One question I'd like to ask you. Do you think that people equate Giuliani's running for President as taking advantage of 9/11? I mean, we'll be honest here. He's in relative obscurity without 9/11. I don't think he's manipulating 9/11, so much as, taking his image of strength and picture of leadership from those horrible days and months and using them to try and become the kind of President people want. A leader with a hard stance on global terrorism who has executive experience in the most important city in the country.
by skatingtripods » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:20 pm
by ProgRocker » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:10 pm
by skatingtripods » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:56 pm
ProgRocker wrote:I see I'm about to enter a lion's den of conservative Republicans, which is fine. I'm happy because I FINALLY got my avatar to load onto this web site properly, and I'd like to respond if I could to the question and the discussion as I understand ...
It shows that absolute power can corrupt absolutely no matter what the party.
Having said that, here's my problem with modern Republicanism: they hate Government. Sounds odd, but after Katrina and what I think are the blatant lies that led us into Iraq, the fact is I believe you need a government that MUST represent the people, MUST work to curb what I think is way too much corporate power, and MUST provide basic services that corporations have now proven beyond a doubt they won't provide -- like health care, environmental protections, and not doing harm to the citizenry.
Simply put, I don't see how a political party that is proud of being hands-off and hand in hand with corporations can do any of that. In fact, listening to every Republican candidate, they seem to embrace NOT doing all of the above, and in the 21st century I for one can't handle that.
To me, everything I've read about what conservatives want is what George W. Bush and lockstep Congress gave them between 2001 and 2007 ... and what has it gotten us? A misbegotten war, a filthy and degrading environment, an economy that is now starting to crumble under our feet, hatred from the rest of the world, a loss in leadership in everything from technical innovation to actually being a beacon of freedom, and a political climate where everyone's at each other's throat. Blech.
Well, surprisingly, not really Hillary. To me, she (and her husband) are just a slightly more liberal version of the corporations-first philosophy that is really more of a Republican enclave, at least to me. She doesn't represent enough change to me. I was hoping for Edwards, but after tonight I don't even know if he'll be around long enough to be a spoiler. So by default that leaves me with Obama, and I can tell you as someone who followed him in IL that the DC establishment 'got' to him, and he's not the Great Hope most people think he is. I'm still hopeful, but not idealistic enough to believe it'll be automatic.
by ProgRocker » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:16 pm
by skatingtripods » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:43 pm
ProgRocker wrote:At least you aren't attacking global warming as a myth! AAIIIEEE!!!
I'll get to what I think the crux of your Repub/Dem point was, but first I must correct a horrible distortion: Barack Obama and his family DO NOT -- I repeat, DO NOT -- have ANY radical Muslim ties whatsoever. I'm from Chicago and worked with him (not directly) on some issues surrounding the problems with capital punishment that led to the moratorium. I know many people that worked with him in the State Senate on a lot of issues and I can vouch for his organizational abilities and his character. Wherever you read or heard of the story of his brother being tied to radicals -- or even the "Barack Hussein Osama" e-mails -- it and they are slurs, plain and simple. Not one iota of truth to them.
With that out of the way, the main argument you make is states' rights, and the belief that the states should take care of a lot of the problems I would argue the feds should. Three retorts:
(1) Some problems are simply beyond the ability of states to handle. That's why we have a military, as you know. It's why we often federalize disaster management, and we saw with Katrina the absolute necessity of that. It's also why something like health care is just not something that can be solved from state to state. California may be able to pull it off -- I doubt that Ohio could. So do we let Californians bask and then start getting illegal immigrants from Ohio? That leads me to ...
(2) Unequal distribution of rights. If we have some states that had universal health care while others simply can't do it, and still others (stereotypically, I'm going to pick Mississippi for my example) don't want to, what you have in essence are mini-countries who have more than other states. I don't think that's equitable, and the Supreme Court's rulings on voting rights and schooling will, I think, back me up on it. Which also, conveniently enough, leads to ...
(3) States rights has for too long in this country been used as an excuse for denying rights. It was the thing used by Southern states to keep slavery for many years, and after that Jim Crow laws as well. It's an ugly precedent, and with no overarching power (like the Federal courts or the Federal government) to make them not do it, they often respond by doing the wrong thing. (That's a similar argument I use for universal health care, too, by the way -- the HMOs have now gotten to the point where they make big money by not giving out services, and "the market" is designed to make money and not give services, so to me it proves they won't give care unless forced to by some force like a Government).
So to summarize, I think states' rights are a big loophole, leads to inequalities, and are fundamentally unfair to the rest of the country.
but I would simply say that the seemingly Republican economic tendency to scream "TAX CUTS!" for everything from budget surpluses to budget deficits to Social Security to the gout has got. To. Stop. We don't like taxes and we need to be judicious, but every once in awhile we DO need to pay a few more bucks for taxes.
As for Republicans I like ... I actually liked a lot of what I read about Huckabee until the rewrite-the-Constitution-under-God stuff came out ... we had a couple of decent ones as IL Governor in Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar ... but I have to admit, at this point I am very leery of any Republican that proudly supported Bush without atoning big-time. I would tend to lean towards the Goldwater-style of as little Government as possible (and pay for things!) than the Grover Norquist types.
And I absolutely loathe the Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter tendencies to demonize and name-call everything I as a Democrat say simply because I am a Democrat and therefore are evil/criminal/unpatriotic/ love to see the troops die/etc. If there's one strain of Republicanism I think really has to stop, that's it. That more than anything is why I am more pro-Obama (who openly asks for a turn away from that rhetoric) from Hillary (who, I think out of habit by now, dishes out as well as she gets - which I used to like but I'm just exhausted with that crap, and the prospect of eight more years of it is just spiritually deadening to me, because if she's there, the Rushes and the Malkins will not let it go. Indeed, I know more than a few Republicans who pray it is Hillary because they want to keep those wars going, on the theory that it's the only way they stay in power. God help us.)
by leadpipe » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:14 pm
by ProgRocker » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:32 pm
by FUDU » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:47 pm
The campaign season should be no longer than 6 months. Outside of that 6 months perhaps some heads will get together and help out the American public.
by skatingtripods » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:05 pm
ProgRocker wrote:On Obama: I don't care what "respected business magazine" you read that slime in, it IS slime and it IS wrong and it IS nothing but an attempt to personally slur Obama. Complete and total lie, and it won't be the first told about Obama, especially if he's on the ticket.
On health care: sorry, but if I can't go to work and I can't afford a doctor's visit because I can't go to work, health care ceases to be a "consumer option." It is part and parcel of "protecting the general welfare," I would argue -- and when it comes to things like epidemics and disease prevention, I suspect you'd agree. I would also hope that if health care reform becomes an issue in 2009 as I think it absolutely must, I'll put my argument up against your argument and let's see who would win in the body politic.
Now, there absolutely needs to be a check and balance whenever power has to be shared or there's a conflict. I think that's the genius of the Founding Fathers, and on that score I think this country has failed miserably in the last 15-25 years. It is, however, why I remain a Democrat, because as imperfect as they are, the fact is most Democrats see government as a check and balance. Does it get too heavy at times? Of course. But Republican theory seems to be less-is-more, and I don't think you can argue that Bush has accelerated the process of fewer checks and balances, to miserable effect, I would argue.
We do disagree on the abilities of the poor to handle health care -- Hell, I know solidly MIDDLE-CLASS individuals who can't get health care. And not always because they've been bad people or because they can't handle their finances. A 28-year-old female friend of mine can't get medical insurance because her mother -- not her, HER MOTHER -- had breast cancer, even though there was no history of breast cancer in her family (they're pretty sure it was an environmental situation in her hometown in NY that did it) (hence my continued disagreement with you about the ills of the environment). What you have to recognize is that the health insurance industry, more and more, is about NOT giving people health care. THAT is what happens without regulation, and THAT is what happens when "the market" is defined not as "how much care can you give and turn a profit," but merely "profit." If you can tell me how you remove that problem and still have privatized health insurance I'll give it a listen, but every other industrialized country on this Earth has decided private health insurance is the wrong answer. At some point you have to think maybe they have it right and we don't (but again, show me where we can get everyone coverage when they need it cost-effectively -- and don't tell me malpractice insurance because that only affects doctors and not the corporations who are making the decisions -- and I'll listen. Promise.)
by leadpipe » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:44 pm
FUDU wrote:The campaign season should be no longer than 6 months. Outside of that 6 months perhaps some heads will get together and help out the American public. I agree with you but from what I have learned from the History Channel we are lucky compared to the first 50-75 years of this country.Supposedly the campaigned up to 24 months before the next election.IMO what needs to change more so than anything else in regards to the election season is the primary BS. All the primaries should be done within 4-6 weeks, do half the states on one Tuesday and the other half a month later. Too few an amount of people have way too big an impact on the candidate list.
by Orenthal » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:10 pm
I agree with you but from what I have learned from the History Channel we are lucky compared to the first 50-75 years of this country.Supposedly the campaigned up to 24 months before the next election.
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests