I am amazed (and a little amused) at how many conservatives are having trouble with the probable republican nominee for president. I think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are going to have big explosions in their little brains.
Even local big brain Michael Bates is upset. He is trying to convince Oklahomans to vote for Huckabee, not because he is his choice, but because he is closest to McCain in state polling. He has writtem three columns on how to stop McCain. http://www.batesline.com/
They all clearly don't want McCain.
I think it is sad to convince someone to vote a certain way, not because of a single stance that they have taken, but because where they stand in the polls in a given state.
Will it matter? Probably not. McCain will be the republican nominee. They will all forget their words this winter and endorse McCain over either Hillary or Obama. They all always do.
Democrats fall in love with their candidate, republicans fall in line with their candidate.
Here is an idea, why don't "conservatives" actually vote for some who is CONSERVATIVE!!??
Like someone who:
-Never voted to Raise Taxes
-Never voted for an Unbalanced budget
-Never voted to raise congressional pay
-Never taken a government-paid junket
-Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch
-Voted against regulating the internet
-Does not participate in lucrative congressional pension program
-And has REPEATEDLY been name the "Taxpayers Best Friend"
Who is this Mystery Candidate?
It is Dr. Ron Paul! You may not of heard of him if you just watch the tube but he just placed 3rd in Maine just barely below the "Front Runner" McCain.
RM, think a little more about it:
People in both parties do the same thing you are speaking of.
People who loved Hillary and didn't like Obama (I've not heard one person say they "hate" him) will fall in line if he wins the nomination. There already are Democrats starting to line up behind Obama and shift their support because they are worried about McCain getting the nomination. As much as Hillary is villified by the GOP and about half of her own party, it could be a landslide for McCain.
The smart strategy is to get Obama nominated because he's fresh enough in Washington and he's been outspoken against Iraq and the status quo. He's young, idealistic, good looking, and thanks to a special endorsement from the family: "The next Jack Kennedy." Get the message out, register a ton of young voters, and just like that he could be president.
All that said, Super Tuesday hasn't happened yet, the polls have proven to be wrong several times thus far in the election season. Romney isn't out of the running till all the votes are tallied.
I think with the winner take all system, it will be better for the GOP to be unified well before the convention. With Hillary and Obama so close, there might be an all-out cat-fight which splits your party irretrevably prior to the general election.
One thing is for certain is there will not be a Bush in the White House this time around. I also have a pretty good gut instinct there won't be a Clinton either. We've had 20 years of those two families. Time for someone else to give it a go.
Michael Bates along with the radio commentators have their core values and stick to them. Do you like it when others lampoon your core values?
I'm with RM on this one.
This whole "tactical" voting stuff smacks of dishonesty. Don't vote for someone you detest. If you don't like any of the candidates in your party, stay home.
Bates has shown a lot of love for Fred Thompson. Last I checked, he's still on the ballot for Tuesday's primary. If Bates truly wants to force a brokered GOP convention this summer (which is unlikely), he should vote for someone he feels enthusiastic about, like Thompson, to take away that vote from McCain.
And Bates' strategy to vote for Huckabee may backfire. Romney is rising fast in the Oklahoma Poll numbers, while Huckabee is dropping. He probably should have advocated a vote for Romney instead. Romney may have a better chance of knocking off McCain at this point, but it's not certain. Such are the risks of using your vote in such a dubious way.
And I doubt there will be that much acrimony between the Obama and Clinton camps. There is little difference in their platforms. And remember, Hillary was the wife of a popular president. Her supposed unpopularity comes from people who wouldn't vote for her anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
Here is an idea, why don't "conservatives" actually vote for some who is CONSERVATIVE!!??
Like someone who:
-Never voted to Raise Taxes
-Never voted for an Unbalanced budget
-Never voted to raise congressional pay
-Never taken a government-paid junket
-Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch
-Voted against regulating the internet
-Does not participate in lucrative congressional pension program
-And has REPEATEDLY been name the "Taxpayers Best Friend"
Who is this Mystery Candidate?
It is Dr. Ron Paul! You may not of heard of him if you just watch the tube but he just placed 3rd in Maine just barely below the "Front Runner" McCain.
Were you one of the Ron Paul sheeple who send a fake press release from "oklahomans for huckabee," misdirecting people to the wrong location for his visit?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
And I doubt there will be that much acrimony between the Obama and Clinton camps. There is little difference in their platforms. And remember, Hillary was the wife of a popular president. Her supposed unpopularity comes from people who wouldn't vote for her anyway.
And this is worth repeating, too. The competition between Hillary and Obama has been strong but not fractious. Democrats are very motivated this cycle, and by and large are ready to back whoever gets the nom.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
And I doubt there will be that much acrimony between the Obama and Clinton camps. There is little difference in their platforms. And remember, Hillary was the wife of a popular president. Her supposed unpopularity comes from people who wouldn't vote for her anyway.
Huh? Been reading the newspapers or listening to the news the last few weeks? You really think there hasn't been acrimony a-plenty with Kennedy's endorsement of Obama amongst many other things?
You guys need to keep in mind, Michael Bates, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are but three Republicans. They don't necessarily speak for an entire party, though that's an easy image to get. They pontificate their views to people via mass media, but that doesn't mean everyone who listens is in lock-step.
The worst thing someone can do is sit out the political process. Every vote is important. It's important every elligible voter participates in our political process. The problem is, many look for absolutes in who we want for our leaders. We need to be open-minded and find the one who is closest to represeting our values, not one who absolutely represents our values.
Single issue and party-line voters do annoy me but that is their right instead of staying home on election day.
Truth of the matter is, I dislike Hillary so much I'd never vote for her, I don't trust her intentions and I think she is going to waste valuable time trying to get her un-workable Hillary-care enacted. McCain is liberal enough, if he runs against Obama, I'll take a closer look at Obama and see which one is better suited to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Congress to make things happen.
No matter who winds up in office, they are going to face Iraq, and I'm certain no one candidate is going to be able to end that conflict any sooner than another, regardless of the current rhetoric.
The "purest" Republican talking heads sure are up in arms about McCain. I'm not sure if it is because they don't like him or because they want Mitt to win (keep in mind some have called for Huckabee to drop out, which would certainly bennefit Romney above others). I don't recall this level of angst the last time he ran.
In any event, I have problems with McCain's fiscal and economic agenda/record and the fact that he has worked for the government his entire life. But I see some positives too (knows the system, socially more liberal, strong defense, works with the other party).
I still stand by the notion that Hillary is nearly unelectable with a 50% negative voter opinion. But the polls indicate she has a good shot over any Republican but McCain (they didn't have Paul on the survey). Obama wins over everyone (though it is a statistical tie with McCain really). Obama/McCain would be a presidential race that I could see positives on both sides - that seems rare lately in politics.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
Here is an idea, why don't "conservatives" actually vote for some who is CONSERVATIVE!!??
Like someone who:
-Never voted to Raise Taxes
-Never voted for an Unbalanced budget
-Never voted to raise congressional pay
-Never taken a government-paid junket
-Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch
-Voted against regulating the internet
-Does not participate in lucrative congressional pension program
-And has REPEATEDLY been name the "Taxpayers Best Friend"
Who is this Mystery Candidate?
It is Dr. Ron Paul! You may not of heard of him if you just watch the tube but he just placed 3rd in Maine just barely below the "Front Runner" McCain.
Were you one of the Ron Paul sheeple who send a fake press release from "oklahomans for huckabee," misdirecting people to the wrong location for his visit?
I don't know what you are talking about.
Or one of the vandals spray painting "Ron Paul" on traffic light signal boxes around town?
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
I don't know what you are talking about.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080201_1__Arepr48631
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I'm with RM on this one.
This whole "tactical" voting stuff smacks of dishonesty. Don't vote for someone you detest. If you don't like any of the candidates in your party, stay home.
Bates has shown a lot of love for Fred Thompson. Last I checked, he's still on the ballot for Tuesday's primary. If Bates truly wants to force a brokered GOP convention this summer (which is unlikely), he should vote for someone he feels enthusiastic about, like Thompson, to take away that vote from McCain.
If the 13% or so who supported Thompson before he dropped out were to vote for him on Tuesday, it would just make it easier for McCain to finish first with an even lower percentage of the vote.
Remember the six-candidate special election in Council District 5 in 2005? The winner had only 29% of the vote because the other 71% was split between five candidates. Would Martinson have won a head-to-head competition with Harer or Phillips? We'll never know.
Let's do some math. Assume 35% of Republican voters prefer John McCain and 65% can't stand him. If that 65% is spread evenly between two or more candidates -- McCain finishes first in Oklahoma and wins all the delegates, even though the vast majority of Oklahoma voters don't like him.
That's why it's important for anyone who wants to stop McCain's momentum to get behind one candidate or another. There is a danger that the poll numbers are wrong, but that's the only thing we have to go by, and in Oklahoma every poll I've seen puts Huckabee in second place here.
Tactical voting is a rational response to a broken voting system -- plurality winner-take-all. Under our current, broken system, an intelligent voter will consider how his vote will combine with the votes of others to produce a result. He will think about what the likely outcomes are, based on the best information he has available, and vote in a way that helps bring about the likely outcome that he prefers.
A rational system like instant runoff voting would allow a voter simply to think about his own preferences, confident that his vote will help candidates he likes without accidentally aiding candidates he doesn't like.
Here's the point:
The national DNC has a responsibility to get a winable candidate nomintated as does the RNC. You are going to see shifting loyalties along the way. The idea is to get the office. So what if there are strange bed-fellows, this is politics, that's what happens in politics.
Yes I do see some flawed logic in voting for candidate C to keep votes from candidate A, so that perhaps candidate B will win.
That's pretty much how "candidate B" won the 1992 presidential race.
From where I sit, Huckabee doesn't stand a chance at winning the nomination, but it's his prerogative as to when he decides to drop out.
I believe more and more rank-and-file Republicans are realizing McCain is the best chance to fend off Obama. Romney or Huckabee could beat Hillary due to pre-existing distaste for the madam. Not quite the certainty against Obama.
<Conan wrote:
Romney or Huckabee could beat Hillary due to pre-existing distaste for the madam. Not quite the certainty against Obama.
<end clip>
I agree that McCain's a formidable candidate. But I think you're way overstating the electorate's disdain for Hillary, and way overstating the electorate's willingness to vote for a Mormon like Romney and an ardent fundamentalist like Huckabee.
Hillary would crush Romney and Huckabee. I've seen the polling data -- we're talking about minimum 15- to 20-point wins.
McCain would be much more competitive.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the point:
The national DNC has a responsibility to get a winable candidate nomintated as does the RNC. You are going to see shifting loyalties along the way. The idea is to get the office. So what if there are strange bed-fellows, this is politics, that's what happens in politics.
Yes I do see some flawed logic in voting for candidate C to keep votes from candidate A, so that perhaps candidate B will win.
That's pretty much how "candidate B" won the 1992 presidential race.
From where I sit, Huckabee doesn't stand a chance at winning the nomination, but it's his prerogative as to when he decides to drop out.
I believe more and more rank-and-file Republicans are realizing McCain is the best chance to fend off Obama. Romney or Huckabee could beat Hillary due to pre-existing distaste for the madam. Not quite the certainty against Obama.
Well, It seems that the polls agree with you. They are predicting that both Romney and McCain will beat Hillary, but that only McCain will beat Obama.
Not that anyone can really trust pollsters!
<Michael Bates wrote:
Let's do some math. Assume 35% of Republican voters prefer John McCain and 65% can't stand him. If that 65% is spread evenly between two or more candidates -- McCain finishes first in Oklahoma and wins all the delegates, even though the vast majority of Oklahoma voters don't like him.
<end clip>
Those are rash assumptions. The Oklahoma Poll has McCain with 40 percent of the vote, with Huckabee with 19 and Romney with 17.
Even if you combined Huck's and Rom's votes, McCain would still win.
And I see that in many state polls for Super Tuesday, McCain is over the 50 percent mark.
I've seen polling data that shows McCain having high positive numbers and among the very lowest negative numbers from Republicans.
All told, this shows that many, many Republicans would have no problem with voting for McCain if he were the nominee. So to say that a majority of Republicans "don't like" McCain is laying it on thick and flies in the face of the facts.
As near as I can tell, the only ones that have big problems with McCain are the elites (like Limbaugh) and fringe elements. The mainstream GOP has no problem with him.
Polls at this stage are very dubious, but here is the best source for data of various head to heads:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Clinton v. Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#upcomingstates
For what it's worth, the most recent polls have Obama ahead in California. Closing 10% gap in about a week. The guy has a good machine and hits the ground, that's for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
And I doubt there will be that much acrimony between the Obama and Clinton camps. There is little difference in their platforms. And remember, Hillary was the wife of a popular president. Her supposed unpopularity comes from people who wouldn't vote for her anyway.
Huh? Been reading the newspapers or listening to the news the last few weeks? You really think there hasn't been acrimony a-plenty with Kennedy's endorsement of Obama amongst many other things?
You guys need to keep in mind, Michael Bates, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are but three Republicans. They don't necessarily speak for an entire party, though that's an easy image to get. They pontificate their views to people via mass media, but that doesn't mean everyone who listens is in lock-step.
The worst thing someone can do is sit out the political process. Every vote is important. It's important every elligible voter participates in our political process. The problem is, many look for absolutes in who we want for our leaders. We need to be open-minded and find the one who is closest to represeting our values, not one who absolutely represents our values.
Single issue and party-line voters do annoy me but that is their right instead of staying home on election day.
Truth of the matter is, I dislike Hillary so much I'd never vote for her, I don't trust her intentions and I think she is going to waste valuable time trying to get her un-workable Hillary-care enacted. McCain is liberal enough, if he runs against Obama, I'll take a closer look at Obama and see which one is better suited to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Congress to make things happen.
No matter who winds up in office, they are going to face Iraq, and I'm certain no one candidate is going to be able to end that conflict any sooner than another, regardless of the current rhetoric.
Agreed. Except the last part.
I'm a cut and run guy like Reagan was......
And here's why we need to stop asap!
Get the hell out of there......no need to save face. Iraq stole our face.
Going Bankrupt
Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic
By Chalmers Johnson
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
a vote for McCaint is a vote for a third Bush term. GOP=grumpy old party
And in case anyone thinks I'm wrong about McCain being very popular with Republicans, and Obama and Hillary voters not having growing animus to each other, here's a poll from Pew that supports both my contentions.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=392
So just 'cos a pundit says something, doesn't mean it matches with the facts.
I wouldn't mind McCain being president. Trying to decide between Hillary and Obama, I have recently been leaning toward Obama. Would be interesting to see how he problem solves, gathers informantion and tackles the issues that confront him. His "compass" seems to be more to my liking, more comfortable to me personally than Hillaries.
And what did the polls say before Iowa & New Hampshire? Only polling which matters is the polling we will see in Weds. news.
Problem is, people get polled who don't wind up voting, are disinterested in the political system and have no intention of voting, and people who change their mind or don't know who they will really vote for until they get to the booth.
Here's Hillary's handicap in the general if she gets nominated:
Approx half or more of the Democrat party has not been voting for her to this point and your poll results even bear that out. Let's say another 25% of Democrats from Obama and Edwards wind up voting for her. I'm willing to bet less than 15% of registered centrist or slightly liberal Republicans would vote for her. Worst thing which could happen to McCain is if the ultra-right GOP's stay home in protest. That is the only scenario I can see which would whisk Hillary into the White House.
I'm banking on Edwards throwing his support behind Obama to get a shot at VP and Richardson being Hillary's choice for VP if she gets the nod at the convention. I think Edwards has held back his support because he wants to be a viable running mate to either at this point. Not well noted in the media is Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone either.
McCain has a liberal enough voting record, and there are enough Democrats who simply distrust the Clintons who would be willing to vote for McCain. He's proven he's Republican in name only. McCain has the potential to gain a more clear-cut victory in Ohio and Florida against Hillary- two lynch-pins of the last two general elections.
More than anything, I think there's a growing ground-swell of sentiment of: "Anyone other than a Clinton or Bush for the next four years".
Think about it, if Hillary were to win the general election, that would mean our country's highest job will have been monopolized by two families for about 10% of our nation's existence.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And what did the polls say before Iowa & New Hampshire? Only polling which matters is the polling we will see in Weds. news.
Problem is, people get polled who don't wind up voting, are disinterested in the political system and have no intention of voting, and people who change their mind or don't know who they will really vote for until they get to the booth.
Here's Hillary's handicap in the general if she gets nominated:
Approx half or more of the Democrat party has not been voting for her to this point and your poll results even bear that out. Let's say another 25% of Democrats from Obama and Edwards wind up voting for her. I'm willing to bet less than 15% of registered centrist or slightly liberal Republicans would vote for her. Worst thing which could happen to McCain is if the ultra-right GOP's stay home in protest. That is the only scenario I can see which would whisk Hillary into the White House.
I'm banking on Edwards throwing his support behind Obama to get a shot at VP and Richardson being Hillary's choice for VP if she gets the nod at the convention. I think Edwards has held back his support because he wants to be a viable running mate to either at this point. Not well noted in the media is Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone either.
McCain has a liberal enough voting record, and there are enough Democrats who simply distrust the Clintons who would be willing to vote for McCain. He's proven he's Republican in name only. McCain has the potential to gain a more clear-cut victory in Ohio and Florida against Hillary- two lynch-pins of the last two general elections.
More than anything, I think there's a growing ground-swell of sentiment of: "Anyone other than a Clinton or Bush for the next four years".
Think about it, if Hillary were to win the general election, that would mean our country's highest job will have been monopolized by two families for about 10% of our nation's existence.
I'd sit the election out if it came down to a mental issue versus a dynasty.
You never know Aox, you and I might find ourselves toasting an Obama victory at the Empire if McCain is the GOP candidate and Hillary goes down in flames. I've got 9 months to research both of them a lot more.
Huck is going to be the next V.P......
Another one liner bait BB?
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Huck is gong to be the next V.P......
HA!
**Sniff**Sniff**
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's Hillary's handicap in the general if she gets nominated:
Approx half or more of the Democrat party has not been voting for her to this point and your poll results even bear that out. Let's say another 25% of Democrats from Obama and Edwards wind up voting for her. I'm willing to bet less than 15% of registered centrist or slightly liberal Republicans would vote for her. Worst thing which could happen to McCain is if the ultra-right GOP's stay home in protest. That is the only scenario I can see which would whisk Hillary into the White House.
A general election with Hillary vs. anybody will depend heavily on independents, who this cycle are breaking for Democrats in huge numbers. The question, as it always is, will be: should we jettison the party in power or not? In spite of all the talk about dynasties and grasping personalities and "Hillary-care" and Bill, etc etc, the electorate still wants the Republicans out of power in a big way, and Hillary, while perhaps distasteful to some, is a hell of a lot better than what we got that last seven years.
quote:
I'm banking on Edwards throwing his support behind Obama to get a shot at VP and Richardson being Hillary's choice for VP if she gets the nod at the convention. I think Edwards has held back his support because he wants to be a viable running mate to either at this point. Not well noted in the media is Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone either.
Those are good points, and I think you're right. They're both angling for power spots. They'll both wait till after Super Tuesday at the least to offer support, and probably later if it's as close as polls say it is.
quote:
McCain has a liberal enough voting record, and there are enough Democrats who simply distrust the Clintons who would be willing to vote for McCain. He's proven he's Republican in name only. McCain has the potential to gain a more clear-cut victory in Ohio and Florida against Hillary- two lynch-pins of the last two general elections.
More than anything, I think there's a growing ground-swell of sentiment of: "Anyone other than a Clinton or Bush for the next four years".
I think you're right . . . . slightly. Yes, there's a minor push against dynasties right now, and it's showing up in Obama's numbers, which are getting better day by day. But it won't translate much into the general. I still think it's not just Bush that needs repudiation, but the entire Republican power base (yah, I know that's strong, but it's true), and Dems and the independents are gonna do that this year. The quote I've heard (from Republican pollsters no less) is that we're undergoing a "paradigm shift" away from conservative politics and towards the left, and woe be to anyone who stands in the way . . . . or denies it's happening.
Fun fact: John McCain IS conservative. Question: Just how big of a caveman club do you have to swing these days to qualify as "conservative?"
One problem with the campaign is that everyone has an opinion or an "image" of someone, without any actual knowledge or information. TV ads, Fox News commentaries, and op-eds only confuse matters more.
I'm a big fan of Project Vote Smart, where you can see actual voting records (with summaries that describe what the votes mean in plain English). They also tell you how often a candidate voted in line with the platforms of various special interest groups. ("Interest Group Ratings")
Check it out: Project Vote Smart (//%22http://vote-smart.org%22)
and their summary info on McCain (//%22http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=53270%22)
I didn't know McCain owned a beer distribution franchise from 1958 to 1981. Damn, and I already voted.
Great site, tons of info.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's Hillary's handicap in the general if she gets nominated:
Approx half or more of the Democrat party has not been voting for her to this point and your poll results even bear that out. Let's say another 25% of Democrats from Obama and Edwards wind up voting for her. I'm willing to bet less than 15% of registered centrist or slightly liberal Republicans would vote for her. Worst thing which could happen to McCain is if the ultra-right GOP's stay home in protest. That is the only scenario I can see which would whisk Hillary into the White House.
A general election with Hillary vs. anybody will depend heavily on independents, who this cycle are breaking for Democrats in huge numbers. The question, as it always is, will be: should we jettison the party in power or not? In spite of all the talk about dynasties and grasping personalities and "Hillary-care" and Bill, etc etc, the electorate still wants the Republicans out of power in a big way, and Hillary, while perhaps distasteful to some, is a hell of a lot better than what we got that last seven years.
quote:
I'm banking on Edwards throwing his support behind Obama to get a shot at VP and Richardson being Hillary's choice for VP if she gets the nod at the convention. I think Edwards has held back his support because he wants to be a viable running mate to either at this point. Not well noted in the media is Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone either.
Those are good points, and I think you're right. They're both angling for power spots. They'll both wait till after Super Tuesday at the least to offer support, and probably later if it's as close as polls say it is.
quote:
McCain has a liberal enough voting record, and there are enough Democrats who simply distrust the Clintons who would be willing to vote for McCain. He's proven he's Republican in name only. McCain has the potential to gain a more clear-cut victory in Ohio and Florida against Hillary- two lynch-pins of the last two general elections.
More than anything, I think there's a growing ground-swell of sentiment of: "Anyone other than a Clinton or Bush for the next four years".
I think you're right . . . . slightly. Yes, there's a minor push against dynasties right now, and it's showing up in Obama's numbers, which are getting better day by day. But it won't translate much into the general. I still think it's not just Bush that needs repudiation, but the entire Republican power base (yah, I know that's strong, but it's true), and Dems and the independents are gonna do that this year. The quote I've heard (from Republican pollsters no less) is that we're undergoing a "paradigm shift" away from conservative politics and towards the left, and woe be to anyone who stands in the way . . . . or denies it's happening.
I've been complaining for a long time there's too much of an incestuous relationship between the religious right and the GOP for too long. Ronald Reagan owed his presidency in part to Reverand Falwell's "Moral Majority". It's been tradition since.
There's been a sharp and acrimonious divide in this country brewing since the early 1990's. Some will trace roots earlier, I'm using the 1994 mid-term election and the White Water investigation as the true baseline on the sharper rhetoric and less respect for members on the other side of the aisle.
That probably all had it's genesis somewhere in Watergate and the Iran-Contra investigations. And perhaps blind desparation by the GOP to have control of both houses and to regain the presidency.
There's got to be a better middle ground than we've experienced over the last 14 years or so. More consideration and respect for other's ideas, more willingness for compromise. Less pork to pay off other legislators. Fewer investigations out of spite.
I don't see where a true liberal can be elected and I don't see where a true conservative can be elected. I'll agree the Independents are going to be a factor.
Fully expect whomever the GOP candidate is to shine the light on the relative inactivity of the Democrat-controlled house and Senate. I can't think of anything substantive nor historic they have accomplished. They punted on immigration. They've capitulated on the war they made the promise they would have ended by now. In short, I think both houses with few exeptional Republicans and Democrats suck. I'm also incredibly disappointed that Bush spends money like a drunken liberal. $3 trillion budget my donkey.
People in Washington have lost sensitivity to what a million dollars means, and are growing less sensitive to what a billion means.
The GOP candidate sure as heck isn't going to point to George Bush as being the roadblock on compromise.
I personally think there is more and more of the "broken government" sentiment coming along, and a general distrust for the veteran lawmakers.
The deciding factor in the general election will come down to trust and or prejudice. We can count on a certain number of party-line voters. There are members of both parties and independents who are going to be searching for someone they trust to lead the country.
Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters. There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in. Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH. He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.
Nice! Looks real good for Obama!
"In your hands lies the future of your world and the fulfillment of the best qualities of your own spirit." –RFK
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Fun fact: John McCain IS conservative. Question: Just how big of a caveman club do you have to swing these days to qualify as "conservative?"
One problem with the campaign is that everyone has an opinion or an "image" of someone, without any actual knowledge or information. TV ads, Fox News commentaries, and op-eds only confuse matters more.
I'm a big fan of Project Vote Smart, where you can see actual voting records (with summaries that describe what the votes mean in plain English). They also tell you how often a candidate voted in line with the platforms of various special interest groups. ("Interest Group Ratings")
Check it out: Project Vote Smart (//%22http://vote-smart.org%22)
and their summary info on McCain (//%22http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=53270%22)
He'd have to have a bigger club than Conan The Barbarian.
That's an interesting site to be sure. I'm not sure I gleaned enough information one way or the other about McCain to say he's a conservative, maybe I'm reading in the wrong areas. I couldn't find anything which hinted at what the vote was supposed to mean. I know there are some better web sites with liberal or conservative acid tests.
McCain has been consistent on partial birth abortion, but the guy has seven kids, what else could one expect? [;)] Conservative there.
His immigration votes and some of his votes on big business have been less than the accepted "conservative" stances.
One thing which does stick out like a sore thumb though is all the "NV" (did not vote) listed next to senator's names during the campaigns. I'm a big fan of forcing legislators to give up their job to run for higher office. These candidates still enjoy the perks and pay of their elected position while not performing any of the duties expected. That leaves states under-represented when it's a Congressman, and really the whole nation under-served when it is a Senator.
Obama looks like he's been playing hookie from the Senate since late June or early July. One NV after another. I also notice though that he did miss voting on key wedge issues, yet voted on other issues the same day or within a day or so of an NV. To me, seems he's purposely avoided some votes which would be controversial.
Is that really just that the citizens of the United States have paid McCain, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, and others each somewhere around $100K in salary just in the last 8 months while they have traipsed around the country trying to realize their political ambitions?
I took note that none of the major candidates of either party filled out the political courage test, they were in good company, Democrat contender Emperor Caesar did not either. However, Republican candidate Vermin Love Supreme did.
They also neglected to show Edwards or Giuliani as candidates. Keep in mind this site is supposed to show actual and rumored candidates for the '08 season.
quote:
Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters. There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in. Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH. He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.
A blog I read today (can't remember where) summed it up this way: Hillary is campaigning to change the party in power. Obama is campaigning to change the system. This is why in my opinion Obama will win. Combine your "broken government" (which I agree with) and his "change the system" meme, and you've got a compelling candidate for members of both parties.
Not nearly enough has been made of Obama's crossover appeal so far, but I expect that to change.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters. There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in. Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH. He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.
A blog I read today (can't remember where) summed it up this way: Hillary is campaigning to change the party in power. Obama is campaigning to change the system. This is why in my opinion Obama will win. Combine your "broken government" (which I agree with) and his "change the system" meme, and you've got a compelling candidate for members of both parties.
Not nearly enough has been made of Obama's crossover appeal so far, but I expect that to change.
Lemme put it this way, if Obama is facing McCain. Teh JSMIII staff is going to have to order lots of TUMS.
There again, Mccain can rest on 26 years of service in Washington, served his country prior to that and he's an experienced negotiator. He's showed bi-partisan efforts.
Obama will be an easy target though when people start looking much closer and find he's only voted on about 60% of the issues because he's been on a rockstar tour to become president. He really is inexperienced. However, that might not be such a bad thing so long as he lines a cabinet with both experienced beltway hawks and some fresh faces.
Well, nobody seemed to care about experience when they elected Dubya. You gotta wonder about a guy who never bothered to travel outside the country...despite the fact that his dad was the President, and Air Force One was available.
"You owned a baseball team and went drinking in Cancun? Sure that's experience! Let's make you the leader of the free world!"
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Well, nobody seemed to care about experience when they elected Dubya. You gotta wonder about a guy who never bothered to travel outside the country...despite the fact that his dad was the President, and Air Force One was available.
"You owned a baseball team and went drinking in Cancun? Sure that's experience! Let's make you the leader of the free world!"
Oh come on P.I. Bush had experience. He denied a bunch of death row pardons when he was Gov. in Texas. He's spent a bunch of other's money on personal follies and foibles. Notice how we never heard about contraband Cuban cigars will Clinton was Presidient? We don't seem to hear much about contraband Colombian coke anymore either.
He was perfectly qualified.
/sarc