[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by AWR Let's try to stay on topic in Ms. Windswept's thread, ya here. ... snip...

I picked McCain, though I'll admit I haven't followed him lately.

However, the other candidate I know anything about, Giuliani, worries me a bit. I don't know much about his politics, but I worry that he would be riding his 9/11 fame all the way to the White House. Honestly, if it weren't for 9/11, would much of the nation even know his name?

From what I read here, though, he sounds pretty level headed. But we're constraining this discussion to Republican candidates. So I chose McCain, but Giuliani might be another option for me.

If I got to look at both sides, I really like Obama's politics. And to ensure I'm not just blowing sunshine out of my rear, I actually picked up a copy of his more political book, The Audacity of Hope. It's been an excellent read so far, and I'd recommend it for anyone who's curious about him. I'll reserve further commentary for the appropriate thread later.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by ShadowOfGed I picked McCain, though I'll admit I haven't followed him lately. However, the other candidate I know anything about, Giuliani, worries me a bit. I don't know much about his politics, but I worry that he would be riding his 9/11 fame all the way to the White House. Honestly, if it weren't for 9/11, would much of the nation even know his name?

hmmm... yes? He was mayor of New York City. Even without 9/11 he would be a pretty prominent politician just for that. He also completely transformed New York City during his 2 terms. He had his issues, which 9/11 may have helped push under the table a bit, but overall he was a fantastic mayor that showed he had the potential to run for higher office and that he was a strong leader who was level headed but stuck to his guns, even when unpopular.

It bothers me that people would say he is "riding" his 9/11 fame. I feel it's disrespectful. But I also understand that its unfortunately inevitable.

He is probably the best candidate so far that can appeal to both parties.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses It bothers me that people would say he is "riding" his 9/11 fame. I feel it's disrespectful. But I also understand that its unfortunately inevitable.

That's why I mentioned that I know fairly little about him, like most other people outside of New York. The only states I've meddled in are North Carolina, Virginia, and California.

I'm not saying he's a bad politician, or that he hasn't done great things, but that most people know him for his role in 9/11. And, if he's the best candidate, I'd hate for that to be the overarching reason he gets elected. I'd rather people know him for his politics and policies; that's the only point I was making.

Also, I definitely mean zero disrespect. It was just my perspective on why he'd have a running start with those of us from outside New York.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses He is probably the best candidate so far that can appeal to both parties.

Despite Obama's ethnicity, I think his politics could be appealing to both sides. They seem to be appealing to those of us who are tiring of the "with us or against us" politics we've seen lately. More importantly, I like his opinions on when government policy/oversight is (and more importantly is not) appropriate.

However, I think Giuliani and McCain both also stand the same chance of holding a greater moderate appeal. I'd love to see a trend toward moderation in 2008, because this America-versus-America crap has gotten out of hand. We're not two red and blue halves; we're one nation. I'd like to see us start negotiating and compromising and existing as one.

We've become so obsessed with "big issues" that make good "sound bites" that we've largely lost touch with our governing philosophies. At least, that's how I feel. I think what's important in the next few elections is not the exact policies we see, but how we go about setting them. Frankly, I couldn't care less about some of the "issues"--but I do care that the government sees fit to intervene or abstain.

I'll support any candidate who's willing to move politics towards a more moderate, principled end. I hope we'll get a good race where both sides field candidates like that. The primaries will likely dash my hopes but until then... I can dream.

[AWR]

Originally Posted by Windswept My original point was really that if I were a 'voter' in, say, Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia (for example), I still think I would be pretty impressed that "the vote of the people" actually decides who will be the leader of the United States - with each citizen, rich and poor alike, having an equal say in the voting booth.

Actually, it's the vote of the electoral college (or the Supreme Court), not the people, that decides who will be the leader of the United States. Ask Al Gore, he'll tell you all about it.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Also, I don't think rich and poor have an equal chance to vote, although their votes when counted are equal. It has been clearly demonstrated that poorer districts have many more problems with many facets of voting compared to wealthier ones. Ratio of machines to voters, less pre-election day voting, more intimidation (convict rolls, threatening calls ...).

Also, I think we should either make election day a holiday or move it to the weekend.

Another aside: it's interesting that the countries you name are all sound, "eternal" friends of the US.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by AWR Actually, it's the vote of the electoral college (or the Supreme Court), not the people, that decides who will be the leader of the United States. Ask Al Gore, he'll tell you all about it. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Yes, AWR, I *am*, in fact, aware of those issues.

Also, I don't think rich and poor have an equal chance to vote, although their votes when counted are equal. It has been clearly demonstrated that poorer districts have many more problems with many facets of voting compared to wealthier ones. Ratio of machines to voters, less pre-election day voting, more intimidation (convict rolls, threatening calls ...).

I agree with your points. I also think various non-governmental organizations (or someone) should apply pressure and/or scrutiny before elections to make sure there are enough functioning voting machines in lower-income districts so that long lines don't become prohibitive.

Also, I think we should either make election day a holiday or move it to the weekend.

There are too many holidays (for government workers). Move it to the weekend.

Another aside: it's interesting that the countries you name are all sound, "eternal" friends of the US.

I picked those because I've read more about those countries than about others. Wrt Saudi, I'd say, with friends like 'those', who needs enemies? And Pakistan's "friendship" will probably last as long as their current leader is in power, and not a second longer. Please pardon my cynicism.

[thegelding]

rudy...i'm not sure what his cross over appeal will be...hilary beats him in new york for president

look at it this way on the issues:
if you are a democrat and you have a democrat who is pro choice and a repub who is pro choice, you vote for the dem...if you are a repub and you have a demo who is pro choice and a repub who is pro choice, you maybe vote repub or stay home...
as for the the iraq war thing, the dem is gonna vote dem...the repub will vote repub or stay home...
as for the multiple marriages and the very weird sex stuff floating about (supposively makes clinton look like a priest)...again, the dems will vote dems and the repubs will likely stay home...

so rudy runs, dems vote dem, repubs vote repub or stay home...likely lots stay home when they see how liberal he is on many issues...the dems might like that he is liberal on many issues, but the democratic canidate will be fairly liberal too...why would they vote for the repub??

the main question that always rises in my head...why would anybody want to be president? every part of your past is laid out and just torn to bits...rudy's has had a good life, has a pretty wife, makes lots in making speeches and such...i would just keep to that and be happy...he must know that mccain is now using the people that bush used to kill mccain's presidental bid in 2000 by raising the possibility of mccain having a bastard black child in south carolina (a lie, but who cares about that stuff)...you can bet that mccain's attack dogs will tear into rudy's past something fierce...mccain will deny it is his people, but the talk will start and spread like cancer

g

[psmith2.0]

I've wondered the same thing for ages.

And I don't wanna hear any dippy, feel-good horseshit from anyone about "sense of duty", "giving back and being a leader" and all that because I seriously doubt that's going through the mind of most of these clowns.

You couldn't pay me to run for President. I'd last about five hours, once the first reporter got on my nerves by asking the same question six times...

"Listen, you miserable, know-it-all little douc...oh, is this thing on?"

(AP_Washington) Popular 'everyman' dark-horse candidate P. Scates saw his campaign unravel during an afternoon press conference that escalated into violence and lots of bad language. Story developing...but we can tell you, it wasn't pretty.

You have to either a) be the biggest egomaniac going, b) the biggest masochist going or c) some weirdo combination of the two to go out of your way to get this particular gig...especially with the media/press they way it is, the general vulture culture we've got going, late night smart-asses dogging your every word and move, political hack operatives whose sole job it is to louse you up and embarrass you daily (even with lies and horrific distortions), etc.

No. Thanks.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 "Listen, you miserable, know-it-all little douc...oh, is this thing on?"

You'd have my vote after "douc..."



Seriously, I wish politicians had a bit more freedom to call a spade a spade. And freedom to not put up with the nonsense the media throw around.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by thegelding rudy...i'm not sure what his cross over appeal will be...hilary beats him in new york for presidentg

Republican mayor in the most populous city in the state, and a republican governor. Rudy is a God in NY.

There is no way he would lose NY. Everyone in the city hates Clinton. That's the truth.

And nationwide we saw how strong the republican party is. There was no way in hell Bush should have won in 2004... and he did... because the Democrats are so out of touch with reality and don't know how to run a campaign.

Rudy will pick up all the existing red states easily and take enough blue states away from Clinton to win.

I'm not saying he is the best candidate. But in a Clinton vs. Rudy battle I think it's an easy Rudy win. I also don't think Clinton beats Obama in the primaries. No one hates Obama. There are tons of people that simply can't stand Clinton.

the main question that always rises in my head...why would anybody want to be president? every part of your past is laid out and just torn to bits...rudy's has had a good life, has a pretty wife, makes lots in making speeches and such...i would just keep to that and be happy...he must know that mccain is now using the people that bush used to kill mccain's presidental bid in 2000 by raising the possibility of mccain having a bastard black child in south carolina (a lie, but who cares about that stuff)...you can bet that mccain's attack dogs will tear into rudy's past something fierce...mccain will deny it is his people, but the talk will start and spread like cancer

And that hits the nail on the head. You are definitely right, and I think that's why Rudy is having his doubts about running. He makes a fortune now, has a good life, is relatively private, etc. We'll see what happens.


Personally, I would hope that Mike Bloomberg runs for president in 2012 if not 2008. He is a great mayor and in my opinion has a very refreshing view on politics and government management. if anything he is efficient and will run this country's budget the way it should be.

[thegelding]

eh, nationwide the rupubs just bit it big time..not so strong...

clinton just rolled in her election...not hated too much...i think you are looking through repub eyes

will look for the poll, but it showed rudy winning the repub primary in NY, but losing to clinton in NY for president...

course polls can change over time...one thing, new yorkers know both rudy's and hilary's past and faults, so nothing new can surprise them...the rest of the country know hilary's past, but not too familiar with rudy's...

g

ps isn't NY's gov a dem??

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by chucker A "fascist"? In what regard? That's a very loosely-defined term.

I am using the term in regards to fascists consistent and excessive merging of political and corporate faculties. Gulliani has other characteristics as well, he is overly nationalistic, uses secretive means to get rid of undesirables, he has advocated the use of america's swinging dick in all situations etc etc. To be honest, given the damage done to the legislative and judicial branches by GWB, I feel that Guiliani would be set up to obtain and abuse executive power not unlike the dictators of fascist europe -- my contention is not only would he be able to do so, he would leap at the opportunity to do so -- his arrogance should be clear enough.

His support of abortion rights and gay rights are irrelevant, particularly since these aren't liberal causes, they are rational causes.

[thegelding]

the thing is, nationwide, as opposed to fairly liberal NYC, i expect repubs to hate rudy for this chart:

http://members.cox.net/mormondad/giu...mparison2.html


so if there is so little different between dems and rudy, why not vote dem if you;re dem...

but for rupubs, if there is so little difference, why vote at all?

and with the nation being so close in number between dem and repub (most elections are within a few points) you only need to have a few repubs stay home because of rudy's views on stem cell or abortion or how he is pro gun control...

not a huge fan of hilary...but she is smart and has put up with hard attacks...she would be fine as president...

but a obama/edwards ticket would be fun...would be hard to find a more attractive and articulate duo....richardson would be cool on the ticket also, or as sec of state

g

[AWR]

g, I agree with you points on Rudy and H. Clinton, but question the one on Edwards.

I was surprised at how little bounce he gave Kerry. Kerry needed piss and vinegar: Edwards provided mayonaise. I love mayonaise, but not as a running mate. Edwards, in the end, didn't even pull his home state (which I think is also true of Gore in 2000).

[thegelding]

well we ain't getting a woman and a black man...nor a hispanic and a black man

so i went ebony and ivory...edwards can raise money and the unions like him and he is good looking...all will help

personally i would love to see obama and edwards name a cabinet already....richardson as Sec of state, hilary for education, clark as sec of defense, heck offer rudy head of homeland security...alway nice to reach across party lines...clinton did it...though we haven't seen it since

i don't have a huge problem with rudy, except his temper and the fact that nobody has ever gone from mayor to president...and his power play after 9-11 was borderline, along with the whole 41 shots and not seeming to care one bit about a man blown away for trying to show his ID to the cops...

but all in all, i really won't be back to this thread...i'm a democrat...i don't really care who the repubs pick and i don't have a say...i do hope it is somebody fairly good and strong in the off chance the political climate changes in the next year or two...the way it stands now people are unhappy with iraq and iraq is the repubs baby, so the dem should win the presidency fairly easily

g

[Brave Ulysses]

eh, nationwide the rupubs just bit it big time..not so strong...

irrelevent to what you said

clinton just rolled in her election...not hated too much...i think you are looking through repub eyes

Uncontested. Did you expect her to lose to herself? You are looking through democratic eyes.

will look for the poll, but it showed rudy winning the repub primary in NY, but losing to clinton in NY for president...

Still waiting. It also helps that Clinton has already started her campaign. Rudy... hasn't even said he is in.

ps isn't NY's gov a dem??

Had been a republican for 8 years. Just got Spitzer (Democrat) who also was uncontested... mostly because he should do a great job and had in his previous position.

I am using the term in regards to fascists consistent and excessive merging of political and corporate faculties.

You are using it inaccurately and with disregard for those who are true fascist.

uses secretive means to get rid of undesirables

like?

His support of abortion rights and gay rights are irrelevant, particularly since these aren't liberal causes, they are rational causes.

And you officially declare yourself to be bias. So that negates everything you argue.

And even though they are "rational" causes, they will sweeten his appeal to all those "democrats" who are actually moderate... something the democratic party still has a hard time admitting... hence why they lost 2004.

the thing is, nationwide, as opposed to fairly liberal NYC, i expect repubs to hate rudy for this chart: http://members.cox.net/mormondad/giu...mparison2.html so if there is so little different between dems and rudy, why not vote dem if you;re dem...

That chart is meaningless. Voters don't vote on charts. I would argue they don't even vote on the big issues that you and I argue over. They will vote for who they feel most comfortable voting for and who they "trust" and "relate to". Unfortunate? Maybe. Guiliani certainly is a moderate. And I can't help but think that will only be an advantage. Republican voters will vote for him as the candidate of the party and he will appeal to a good portion of democrats. Bush has proved one does not need many on the left to vote for a republican to get one into office.

and with the nation being so close in number between dem and repub (most elections are within a few points) you only need to have a few repubs stay home because of rudy's views on stem cell or abortion or how he is pro gun control...

Only in toss up states. And you can bet that both sides will make it known that voters must get out in those states.

As shown before, the popular vote isn't everything.

but a obama/edwards ticket would be fun...would be hard to find a more attractive and articulate duo....richardson would be cool on the ticket also, or as sec of state

Edwards? He was dead on arrival in 2004. The democratic party needs to forget 2004. Kerry and Edwards had their shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I don't want that any where near the white house. At least guillianni is bald

i don't have a huge problem with rudy, except his temper and the fact that nobody has ever gone from mayor to president

He got things done, and what does precedence have to do with anything? Does being a governor somehow make someone more eligible to be president? I would hope we look at people for who they are, not what their previous position was.

and his power play after 9-11 was borderline

Powerplay? What exactly did he do wrong? Besides try to squeeze a ballpark deal in before he left office. If anything, his taking control after 9/11 shows he would be a strong on purpose hands on leader.

along with the whole 41 shots and not seeming to care one bit about a man blown away for trying to show his ID to the cops...

Glad you put words and emotions in his mouth... didn't care? It was a difficult situation for all involved. Guiliani was mayor. Not police commissioner, and he certainly wasn't the officers who shot those bullets. Sure, he could have handled it different, perhaps better, but you can say that about any situation.

i'm a democrat...i don't really care who the repubs pick and i don't have a say.

You do realize that being so closed minded you are just as bad as those you criticize, right?

It would be amazing if people would stop voting down party lines, even stop thinking along party lines, and think for themselves, and vote for the best candidate, no matter what party they are.

so the dem should win the presidency fairly easily

Deja vu

To be honest, I would love to see a Guiliani /Democratic VP ticket or vice versa.

But the 2 party system sucks and it will never happen.

[faust]

Not sure where Rudy is a god in HY is coming from.

Plenty of us in NY were glad to see him leave at the end of his term. Between his public affair and his lack of respect for the 1st amendment through his lack of fiscal discipline he wasn't much of a mayor. Mike Bloomberg is 10x the mayor that Rudy was.

As for Hillary Clinton, I believe her approval rating in NY is over 70%, so again where does the everyone in NYC hates her come from?

While we did have Mr. do nothing Pataki for governor, it is important to note that most of his strength came from the hicks in upstate NY. What to talk about a hated politician, mention Pataki’s name anywhere on Long Island.

At the moment not only does NY have a D for governor but also a major transformation has occurred downstate in that the population of Long Island has transformed to friendly D territory after years of being a Republican stronghold. Years of corruption will have that effect and now it seems few Republicans are safe on LI.


But all this is pointless because in the end neither Hillary nor Rudy will be in the final race. The both carry too much baggage.


Signed Faust from 46th and Park in NYC.

[AWR]

Originally Posted by faust But all this is pointless because in the end neither Hillary nor Rudy will be in the final race. The both carry too much baggage.

Good points. And this last one could be true too. I've got Gore beats McCain in 2008.

[faust]

Originally Posted by AWR Good points. And this last one could be true too. I've got Gore beats McCain in 2008.

McCain doesn't get past the religious right, he won't be a finalist.

Plus his flip flopping to appease the religious right means he won't get the meoderate vote.

[thegelding]

as a democrat i can't vote in a repub primary...so i can't help pick the repub canidate...not sure how that makes me closed minded

of course i will always vote for the best canidate...which means i can never vote republican...i can not support a party that is
anti-gay,
anti-immigration (the thing that made this country so great in the first place),
that is anti-affirmitive action (i was raise a poor white kid in so cal and then no cal...i lived with and hung with mostly hispanics in so cal and most blacks in no cal, i went to malcolm x elementry school...i saw first hand my whole childhood how minorities where treated differently...i was a cute white boy...every door opened for me, every break went my way, nobody crossed the street when they saw me coming, nobody locked their car doors when i came close...but i saw just the opposite for my friends of "color"...will we always need AA?? god i hope not, but we ain't equal yet, not by a long shot),
that is pro death penalty (you can't say it is wrong to kill, so we are going to kill you...a man can want vengence, and even seek vengence...but society can not want revenge or payback or any of those things...society must be stronger than a single man)
and that is anti choice for women (effectively trying to keep woman as second class citizens...i will fight to the death so that my daughters are not second class citizens with less rights than men...i hope that when and if my daughters get pregnant that it is a wonderful thing. that said, the difference between me and the republican line is this...i'm sure the repubs love their mothers, their wifes and their daughters, but i love and respect my mother, my wife, my two beautiful and gracefilled daughters...i respect them enough to know they will make decisions in their lives based on their beliefs, their situations, their current positions (physical, mental, financial etc) and then i love them enough to stand with them and support them in whatever they decide

so what you consider closed minded, i don't...the best person would look at those positions and those issue and either choose to be a dem or choose to be independant...if you choose to be a repub, then you choose to be against gays and blacks and latinos, against any form of gun control (heck bring on the automatic weapons and cop killer bullets...we need those to hunt rabbits), against choice for women and for the death penalty...so until i see changes to the national platform, i don't see ever voting repub...of course that has happened before...back in history i would have gladly voted for lincoln and been a repub...that changed, so it could change again

g

ps...aren't we tired of white males as both president and vice president...we have had that for over 200 years...isn't time to try either a woman or a minority for at least one post?

now condi would be interesting...black, female and gay...holy heck, the trifecta...her being on the repub ticket for pres just might open my eyes to changes in the repub platforms...not sure i would vote for her, but i would listen closely and i would love to see the reaction in the red states...they like her as bush's aide, but would they love her as leader of the good ole USA?

g

[Banana]

condi's gay? I see no indication of her being on the other side of tracks?

[AWR]

I'd say if it was true, it would be the only quasi-interesting thing about her. Useless. Just think of how thrashed the US international prestige and influence is; Condi shares a decent share of responsibility for that.

Sorry, off topic spasm.

[AWR]

Originally Posted by Windswept ....I also think various non-governmental organizations (or someone) should apply pressure and/or scrutiny before elections to make sure there are enough functioning voting machines in lower-income districts so that long lines don't become prohibitive.

Here's someone trying to get it done, Windswept. You'd think that in this day and age, they'd have figured out something that works well. I mean we sent men to the moon (AND GOT THEM BACK ) 38 years ago....

Editorial

Making Democracy Credible

February 9, 2007

Time is growing short to head off more embarrassing voting machine scandals. The presidential election looms, yet nearly half of the states offer no reassuring paper trail so voters who use electronic voting machines can check that their ballot choices are accurately recorded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/op... 070&emc=eta1

[BuonRotto]

I picked Rudy Guiani because I think he's almost certain to lose if he gets the nomination. Is that a legit reason to pick someone? To (hopefully) guarantee a loss?

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto I picked Rudy Guiani because I think he's almost certain to lose if he gets the nomination. Is that a legit reason to pick someone? To (hopefully) guarantee a loss?

Well, yes, it is. Just as some Republicans want Hillary to be nominated because they feel there's *no* way she'd be able to win the general election.

I notice that Giuliani is now only two votes behind McCain in our poll.

Wrt Gore, I'm a registered Democrat, and I think Gore is a nice person, and all. But he doesn't seem like a strong person to me, or like he has the intestinal fortitude to make the tough decisions when the sh!t hits the fan.

Offhand, I think this thing will come down to Hillary and McCain, and McCain will lose because of his support for the war and for more troops.

So Hillary will become President of the United States with Obama as vice-president. When Hillary finishes her two terms, Obama will be elected President in 2016.

I'm going by my female intuition here, folks.

[chucker]

(edit) Never mind, too much booze.

[billybobsky]

He isn't a republican...

[thegelding]

windy, i think that would be great...but i wonder if this country is ready for both a woman president and black vice president...neither one has happened before, and now we get both at the same time??

that said, i would vote for that ticket and sleep like a baby...and America could surprise me...after all, it ain't your color, it ain't your gender...it's your heart, its your mind, it's your valour and integrity

g

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by thegelding windy, i think that would be great...but i wonder if this country is ready for both a woman president and black vice president...neither one has happened before, and now we get both at the same time?? that said, i would vote for that ticket and sleep like a baby...and America could surprise me...after all, it ain't your color, it ain't your gender...it's your heart, its your mind, it's your valour and integrity g

I think our politics these days seems to be that people vote for the person with the fewest objectionable traits/beliefs.

We don't really vote *for* someone so much, as 'against' all the others, and end up making choices in a process of elimination. We eliminate all those we truly can't abide, and then end up voting for the least objectionable person on our list.

The current president was selected by the Republicans for very few reasons. Number One, he *wasn't* Clinton. Meaning that he had a good marriage and was faithful to his wife. For the Republicans and their fundamentalist base, this aspect was of *major* importance in selecting "the leader of the western world". ()

Second, his actual father had been an actual President of the US. Pretty good family background, as these things go. And that was *it* in a nutshell. No *real* qualifications were needed - in the minds of the Republican 'decisionmakers'.

"W" was selected 'not' for what he was, but for what he *wasn't*. He wasn't a womanizer, and he wasn't a poor kid with a nondescript family background. The fact that he had a mediocre intellect at best, and virtually *no* curiosity/interest/experience of/knowledge about the rest of the world and its history mattered not in the least.

This sort of thing makes me feel ill.

*sigh*

My point, g, is that when people go down their list and eliminate candidates based on 'this or that' that they find objectionable in them, they end up with: a woman and a black man.

It's not so much that the country is *ready* for these two, but that by the process of elimination, they have risen to the top of the pile.

[hiltond]

Originally Posted by Windswept We don't really vote *for* someone so much, as 'against' all the others, and end up making choices in a process of elimination. We eliminate all those we truly can't abide, and then end up voting for the least objectionable person on our list.

There are two people, each from different parties that I could vote *for* this time and they both stand a strong chance of being nominated. The night before the election I might be weighing positive qualities Thats cool.

[digitalprimate]

Maybe to add to Windswept's argument about "W":
And he is very religious.