|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 12, 2007 23:41:44 GMT -5
I am not overly excited by any of the Democrats, maybe due to some disappointment that Al Gore is sitting this one out. This being said, I lean Obama right now mainly due to an "anybody but Hillary" mentality and an opinion of Edwards almost approaching SPH's opinion of him.
My hope is that an Obama ticket would include a distinguished legislator or Governor on the veep slate. Plenty of solid governors out there - Sebelius, Napolitano, Granholm, Schweitzer, Rendell, and Bredesen are just a few that jump out as having a little more cache. Bill Nelson will get some mentions for what he could bring in a race that will probably be won in the middle (and for Florida). Evan Bayh will get a mention too for similar reasons. We'll probably hear Salazar's name too for demographic reasons. Tom Daschle would be a fascinating pick and might be well positioned considering how many of his former aides are involved in Obama's campaign.
I happen to think Edwards is a nice guy and not the phony some believe, but that debate to me is almost irrelevant when one evaluates his positions and stature in policy debates. And, as Jay Leno said, "There may be two Americas. Neither one voted for him."
Now, some might say that Obama is similarly inexperienced. I disagree to the extent that he should get some credit for getting Iraq right in 2003 when his position was considered wildly unpopular and was politically disadvantageous. If Hillary, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et al. is who we consider "experienced," give me something else.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 12, 2007 23:43:43 GMT -5
I agree that this might be the highest Huckabee gets. Now that he's actually in contention, he's starting to get the not-so-fawning press coverage Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson/McCain have been getting. So far, that's shown us that Huckabee thinks some truly nutty stuff (I'm referring to the "quarantine AIDS patients" stuff) and that he's a policy lightweight when compared to the other GOP contenders.
I think Giuliani's got way too many scandals to be a viable candidate. The only thing that's really blown up is the tax dollars going to his mistress' transportation. Both the Kerik mess and the whole "pedophile priest on staff" thing haven't come out yet.
Romney didn't really get into my good graces with his speech on religion, but it might have served him well with GOP primary voters. Right now, I think he's the one going to come out of this at the end, although there's a chance McCain could finish his rebound.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 12, 2007 23:52:39 GMT -5
I think the issue with Giuliani's campaign right now is that national security and the war in Iraq are declining in imporatance - so his foreign policy chops may not be as important as the winner of the debate on issues like immigration and health care. So his message may not resonate as well nationally as national primaries approach.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 13, 2007 0:34:04 GMT -5
The Republicans are in a sticky position. American elections these days are all about turnout. Having a lot of people who like you is nice, but it doesn't mean a thing if they don't vote.
The Republicans need to find somebody who can draw middle ground voters and still get the Christian Right to turn out in droves on election day. If the Christian Right sits the election out the Republicans are doomed. If Hillary gets the nod from the Dems the Republicans don't have to worry - they can nominate a moderate like Rudy or pick Romney despite his Mormonism and the entire Republican base will still turn out just to vote against Hillary.
If somebody other than Hillary gets the nod the Republicans will have to tread carefully, since the Christian Right turnout won't be guaranteed. Picking Rudy would be disaster due to his liberal social policies. Romney's Mormonism would be a liability in terms of turning out the base. More right-wing candidates like Huckabee or Thompson would help get the Republican base to the polls, but possibly at the risk of losing the middle ground to the Dems.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 13, 2007 10:54:29 GMT -5
I think the issue with Giuliani's campaign right now is that national security and the war in Iraq are declining in imporatance - so his foreign policy chops may not be as important as the winner of the debate on issues like immigration and health care. So his message may not resonate as well nationally as national primaries approach. There's also the issue that his foreign policy is, how do I say this, batsh#t insane.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 13, 2007 11:13:08 GMT -5
I think the issue with Giuliani's campaign right now is that national security and the war in Iraq are declining in imporatance - so his foreign policy chops may not be as important as the winner of the debate on issues like immigration and health care. So his message may not resonate as well nationally as national primaries approach. There's also the issue that his foreign policy is, how do I say this, batsh#t insane. Is that better or worse than "bomb, bomb, bomb, - bomb, bomb Iran" now?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 13, 2007 11:13:19 GMT -5
I think the issue with Giuliani's campaign right now is that national security and the war in Iraq are declining in imporatance - so his foreign policy chops may not be as important as the winner of the debate on issues like immigration and health care. So his message may not resonate as well nationally as national primaries approach. There's also the issue that his foreign policy is, how do I say this, batsh#t insane. Which part is insane?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 13, 2007 12:06:56 GMT -5
There's also the issue that his foreign policy is, how do I say this, batsh#t insane. Is that better or worse than "bomb, bomb, bomb, - bomb, bomb Iran" now? The same, actually. War with Iran for no good reason in '09!
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 13, 2007 12:07:49 GMT -5
There's also the issue that his foreign policy is, how do I say this, batsh#t insane. Which part is insane? The part where Norman Podhertz is in charge of deciding where the US military goes.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 13, 2007 12:38:27 GMT -5
See, hifi!
Podohertz is not the only foreign policy advisor to Rudy. Yes, he's a neocon. However, (forty-three minute speech on checks and balances deleted). So, in other words, Podohertz does not becomes the second coming of the liberal nightmare of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Also, do you know who the initial discussions for SecDef were after 43 got elected? Dan Coats and Colin Powell.
Except for Ron Paul, the distinctions in foreign policy for the Republican group when it comes to the military aren't that significant.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 13, 2007 16:56:04 GMT -5
The Republicans are in a sticky position. American elections these days are all about turnout. Having a lot of people who like you is nice, but it doesn't mean a thing if they don't vote. The Republicans need to find somebody who can draw middle ground voters and still get the Christian Right to turn out in droves on election day. If the Christian Right sits the election out the Republicans are doomed. If Hillary gets the nod from the Dems the Republicans don't have to worry - they can nominate a moderate like Rudy or pick Romney despite his Mormonism and the entire Republican base will still turn out just to vote against Hillary. If somebody other than Hillary gets the nod the Republicans will have to tread carefully, since the Christian Right turnout won't be guaranteed. Picking Rudy would be disaster due to his liberal social policies. Romney's Mormonism would be a liability in terms of turning out the base. More right-wing candidates like Huckabee or Thompson would help get the Republican base to the polls, but possibly at the risk of losing the middle ground to the Dems. You make some good points here. That is basically what I was saying to ed on page one, when I said that I hoped that not too many people had his exclusionary views, as it could mean an easy path for Hillary or Obama. As for Giuliani, I really like him more and more. Obviously I would like a candidate who is electable. But more than that, I really think we need a moderate commander in chief, and really one from the right. Both branches of the house are likely to stay solidly blue after November, and if a Democrat gets in there, I think we may very well see the end of America as we know it. I think you would see huge moves to essentially rig the elections. There would be movements to restore voting rights to felons. There would be huge movements to legalize illegal aliens and every other trick in the book to make it to where the right never has another chance. At this very delicate time in our history, I honestly think that a balance of power is critical. I am not saying the sky is falling but if one party has complete control then I think things will change irrevecably.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Dec 13, 2007 17:22:41 GMT -5
You make some good points here. That is basically what I was saying to ed on page one, when I said that I hoped that not too many people had his exclusionary views, as it could mean an easy path for Hillary or Obama. As for Giuliani, I really like him more and more. Obviously I would like a candidate who is electable. But more than that, I really think we need a moderate commander in chief, and really one from the right. Both branches of the house are likely to stay solidly blue after November, and if a Democrat gets in there, I think we may very well see the end of America as we know it. I think you would see huge moves to essentially rig the elections. There would be movements to restore voting rights to felons. There would be huge movements to legalize illegal aliens and every other trick in the book to make it to where the right never has another chance. At this very delicate time in our history, I honestly think that a balance of power is critical. I am not saying the sky is falling but if one party has complete control then I think things will change irrevecably. Both branches of the house are going to remain blue? I knew there were two chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, but I had no idea there were also two branches of the House. Learn something new everyday... But seriously, the end of the world as we know it? Really? It is stupid when Democrats claim that Bush is trying to find a way to cheat and stay in power after the end of his term, and it sounds just as stupid when people claim the Democrats will do the same thing. And states control the voting rights of felons within the state, Congress has no effects on those rules. And what drugs are required to think Giuliani would be a moderate CiC. Moderate president as a whole I can understand, moderate as a CiC? Ha, thats a good one.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Dec 13, 2007 18:04:02 GMT -5
Both branches of the house are likely to stay solidly blue after November, and if a Democrat gets in there, I think we may very well see the end of America as we know it. I think you would see huge moves to essentially rig the elections. There would be movements to restore voting rights to felons. There would be huge movements to legalize illegal aliens and every other trick in the book to make it to where the right never has another chance. At this very delicate time in our history, I honestly think that a balance of power is critical. I am not saying the sky is falling but if one party has complete control then I think things will change irrevecably. Hyperbolize much?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 13, 2007 18:45:57 GMT -5
The Republicans are in a sticky position. American elections these days are all about turnout. Having a lot of people who like you is nice, but it doesn't mean a thing if they don't vote. The Republicans need to find somebody who can draw middle ground voters and still get the Christian Right to turn out in droves on election day. If the Christian Right sits the election out the Republicans are doomed. If Hillary gets the nod from the Dems the Republicans don't have to worry - they can nominate a moderate like Rudy or pick Romney despite his Mormonism and the entire Republican base will still turn out just to vote against Hillary. If somebody other than Hillary gets the nod the Republicans will have to tread carefully, since the Christian Right turnout won't be guaranteed. Picking Rudy would be disaster due to his liberal social policies. Romney's Mormonism would be a liability in terms of turning out the base. More right-wing candidates like Huckabee or Thompson would help get the Republican base to the polls, but possibly at the risk of losing the middle ground to the Dems. You make some good points here. That is basically what I was saying to ed on page one, when I said that I hoped that not too many people had his exclusionary views, as it could mean an easy path for Hillary or Obama. As for Giuliani, I really like him more and more. Obviously I would like a candidate who is electable. But more than that, I really think we need a moderate commander in chief, and really one from the right. Both branches of the house are likely to stay solidly blue after November, and if a Democrat gets in there, I think we may very well see the end of America as we know it. I think you would see huge moves to essentially rig the elections. There would be movements to restore voting rights to felons. There would be huge movements to legalize illegal aliens and every other trick in the book to make it to where the right never has another chance. At this very delicate time in our history, I honestly think that a balance of power is critical. I am not saying the sky is falling but if one party has complete control then I think things will change irrevecably. Couldn't all of those be argued as being reversing GOP dirty tricks of the past 7 years. You know, when Republicans controlled everything and life was totally awesome?! Ooooooh. The Democrats are going to give people who've been released from jail their voting rights back! Those sadistic monsters!!! It's like you're parodying yourself sometimes, HiFi.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 13, 2007 18:55:52 GMT -5
Both branches of the house are likely to stay solidly blue after November, and if a Democrat gets in there, I think we may very well see the end of America as we know it. I think you would see huge moves to essentially rig the elections. There would be movements to restore voting rights to felons. There would be huge movements to legalize illegal aliens and every other trick in the book to make it to where the right never has another chance. At this very delicate time in our history, I honestly think that a balance of power is critical. I am not saying the sky is falling but if one party has complete control then I think things will change irrevecably. Hyperbolize much? HiFi's life is a Manichean struggle between that which gives him comfort and that he does not understand. In that light, this was restrained.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 13, 2007 19:32:47 GMT -5
Think everyone knows where I stand in the political spectrum but I'd make the case the country would be worse off in the long run if Rudy were elected than if Hillary were. My reasoning is that Rudy's election would introduce a long period of neither party representing the views of cultural conservatives; whereas if Hillary is elected the Republican party might return to its cultural base.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 14, 2007 5:31:54 GMT -5
Ed - If the Republican nominee is a business conservative (like Romney was before he re-packaged himself to run for President), would you consider voting for a third party candidate who was a staunch social conservative? Alternatively, how would you feel if Huckabee gets the nomination and a business conservative (as opposed to social conservative) runs as a third party candidate?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 14, 2007 7:03:48 GMT -5
All the major Republican candidates except Rudy are acceptable to me, including Romney and Huckabee, and would get my vote before a third party candidate. Social conservatism is much more important to me than "business" conservatism. I'd rather save babies than get a tax cut.
|
|
|
Post by dajuan on Dec 14, 2007 12:32:16 GMT -5
Like EasyEd, I'm a single issue voter. But for me, that issue is the Third Amendment. tinyurl.com/3697jl
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 14, 2007 12:42:38 GMT -5
I'm the same way with the 21st Amendment.
|
|