Going through the list of candiates, I'm sure I'll irritate most everyone because I'm usually pretty strongly critical of both "teams": </p> Democrats:</p> Barack Obama: Is he serious when he says he'd fight in Pakistan? That might be necessary, but the unnecessary tough talk makes him look a little out of his element and puppydog youthful. I haven't decided whether there's actual substance to this man or whether he's the Black John Edwards.</p> John Edwards: No. In addition to being a world class fop, he seems to be a hollow, feckless lying shell of a man. This article pretty much lays it out for me. A man who's willing to lie so bravely, badly, and needlessly shouldn't be within thousands of miles of the presidency.</p> Hilary Clinton: No. I could go on about a variety of things that bother me about her, but the most obvious thing is that I think we're getting to the point of some sort of danger (although an intangible one I can't put a precise description to) if we've an increasingly powerful branch of the government controlled by two families for something 24-28 years. I'm sure lots of folks will quibble and justify it to themselves that it's "better than the alternative", but I think this is a big picture consideration that overrides a lot of other stuf. Life will go on if someone else is president, just like it always has. Thinking otherwise is a step down the wrong road. And a quarter to third of a century under the control of these people just shouldn't sit right with anyone.</p> Bill Richardson: Relatively sane, mixed with a royal sense of entitlement. Ick. Probably doesn't have a chance, but I'd rank him as the second best democrat the moment.</p> Joe Biden: No. Very smart guy who I wouldn't entrust with anything requiring tact.</p> </p> Republicans:</p> Ron Paul: My heart goes out to you bud, but nobody wants to hear common sense these days. I also think it's worth pointing out here the naivete of Libertarian foreign policy. Fundamentally I agree with Paul that we'e better off not being entangled in the affairs of other countries. But there are two important disagreements. 1. That doesn't mean walking away from a problem is the best solution- that's simplistic and 2. The tone and tenor of the argument as he puts it serves to justiy the "it's all America's fault" crowd, which largely is a load of crap. By that I mean that American might be better off extricating itself from peoples' business, but other peoples' largely have themselves to blame, and no one else, for their failures. That being said, doing a half-assed cut and run sort of thing in the Middle East would largely be creating a bad situation for which we are to blame.</p> John McCain: No. I'm much more pro-immigration than the average guy. And much more into political speech. And the two biggest things that McCain has done in the past ten years or so were a mind-numbingly bad immigration bill and a counterproductive bill regulating what people could and couldn't say in political campaigns. This, as they say, is not a track record of success. I've got tremendous respect for him as an individual, but I don't see a lot I agree on with him politically.</p> Rudy Guliani: Maybe. The downside here is he's an irritable workaholic. He doesn't work and play well with others (to quote what my report cards usually said about me when I was little). He's also a man who's actually accomplished real things in his life, and done so in ways that required some measure of personal courage and leadership on his part. I'd feel pretty comfortable with him running the show. My big concern is that his relatively sensible positions (pro growth economics, social moderation, a low tolerance for bullshit) won't get him very far in the Republican primaries.</p> Mitt Romney: Looks a little too slick for me, and again, is yet another progeny of the ruling class. No thanks. Doesn't bother me at all that he's Mormon. Bothers me that he's a career politician and the son of a career politician. As a slight positive, he seemed capable of governing a state and he's at least thought somewhat seriously about foreign policy issues.</p> Fred Thompson: No. Currently running on the platform of "I'm not any of the other guys". Is Ronald Reagan without the common sense libertarianism and genuine desire to do the right thing that Reagan hand. That is, he's just another pol, who happened to be an actor too, not an actor who figured out he actually had something to say.</p> </p>
On the dems side, I like Richardson. If you liked clinton, he's going to be a lot like him, without the baggage and scandals. He's a genuinely good guy.</p> There's so much hate coming from the left, I wouldn't be very happy with any of the rest of 'em.</p> On the republican side, Paul is my man. I will be voting for him, as I think here in Nevada, we have an early primary. I'm a registered independant, and like it that way. I don't like being called by "my" party begging for money, nor do I support much of what either side does. If I have to elect to be republican to vote for him, I will.</p> I suspect neither Richardson nor Paul will be the nominees, so in the general election, I'll be voting Libertarian for president and most of the other positions, as I have for the last 4 elections.</p> Regarding immigration, I'm for free and open immigration for all. I think it's vile that people are hating on hispanics for some reason. The truth of the matter is that most mexicans are native americans of some sort and the people there used to live in places like California, Texas, Arizona, and so on. Long before europeans discovered america. I do favor a fence in some places, but not to keep people out - just to keep them from crossing in places where they end up wandering in the desert and dying from the heat and lack of water.</p> </p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>Anybody but Hillary is good.</div>agreed. i don't know much about anybody, but to me, rudy giuliana looks like the best option. it seems he did a pretty good job in new york, even pre-9/11.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>Anybody but Hillary is good.</div>agreed. i don't know much about anybody, but to me, rudy giuliana looks like the best option. it seems he did a pretty good job in new york, even pre-9/11.</div>If by a pretty good job you mean refusing to meet with people he didn't agree with (like Bush), governing without regard to half his constituency (like Bush), instituting policies he knew wouldn't hold up under judicial review and then losing lawsuit after lawsuit (like Bush), and bringing down the crime rate (which was actually a pretty big deal, even he achieved this by having the police pat down every black teenager on the street- I don't know if the ends justified the means, but maybe), then yeah, one could even say he did a heck of a job.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC)</div><div class='quotemain'> Going through the list of candiates, I'm sure I'll irritate most everyone because I'm usually pretty strongly critical of both "teams": </p> Democrats:</p> Barack Obama: Is he serious when he says he'd fight in Pakistan? That might be necessary, but the unnecessary tough talk makes him look a little out of his element and puppydog youthful. I haven't decided whether there's actual substance to this man or whether he's the Black John Edwards.</p> John Edwards: No. In addition to being a world class fop, he seems to be a hollow, feckless lying shell of a man. This article pretty much lays it out for me. A man who's willing to lie so bravely, badly, and needlessly shouldn't be within thousands of miles of the presidency.</p> Hilary Clinton: No. I could go on about a variety of things that bother me about her, but the most obvious thing is that I think we're getting to the point of some sort of danger (although an intangible one I can't put a precise description to) if we've an increasingly powerful branch of the government controlled by two families for something 24-28 years. I'm sure lots of folks will quibble and justify it to themselves that it's "better than the alternative", but I think this is a big picture consideration that overrides a lot of other stuf. Life will go on if someone else is president, just like it always has. Thinking otherwise is a step down the wrong road. And a quarter to third of a century under the control of these people just shouldn't sit right with anyone.</p> Bill Richardson: Relatively sane, mixed with a royal sense of entitlement. Ick. Probably doesn't have a chance, but I'd rank him as the second best democrat the moment.</p> Joe Biden: No. Very smart guy who I wouldn't entrust with anything requiring tact.</p> </p> Republicans:</p> Ron Paul: My heart goes out to you bud, but nobody wants to hear common sense these days. I also think it's worth pointing out here the naivete of Libertarian foreign policy. Fundamentally I agree with Paul that we'e better off not being entangled in the affairs of other countries. But there are two important disagreements. 1. That doesn't mean walking away from a problem is the best solution- that's simplistic and 2. The tone and tenor of the argument as he puts it serves to justiy the "it's all America's fault" crowd, which largely is a load of crap. By that I mean that American might be better off extricating itself from peoples' business, but other peoples' largely have themselves to blame, and no one else, for their failures. That being said, doing a half-assed cut and run sort of thing in the Middle East would largely be creating a bad situation for which we are to blame.</p> John McCain: No. I'm much more pro-immigration than the average guy. And much more into political speech. And the two biggest things that McCain has done in the past ten years or so were a mind-numbingly bad immigration bill and a counterproductive bill regulating what people could and couldn't say in political campaigns. This, as they say, is not a track record of success. I've got tremendous respect for him as an individual, but I don't see a lot I agree on with him politically.</p> Rudy Guliani: Maybe. The downside here is he's an irritable workaholic. He doesn't work and play well with others (to quote what my report cards usually said about me when I was little). He's also a man who's actually accomplished real things in his life, and done so in ways that required some measure of personal courage and leadership on his part. I'd feel pretty comfortable with him running the show. My big concern is that his relatively sensible positions (pro growth economics, social moderation, a low tolerance for bullshit) won't get him very far in the Republican primaries.</p> Mitt Romney: Looks a little too slick for me, and again, is yet another progeny of the ruling class. No thanks. Doesn't bother me at all that he's Mormon. Bothers me that he's a career politician and the son of a career politician. As a slight positive, he seemed capable of governing a state and he's at least thought somewhat seriously about foreign policy issues.</p> Fred Thompson: No. Currently running on the platform of "I'm not any of the other guys". Is Ronald Reagan without the common sense libertarianism and genuine desire to do the right thing that Reagan hand. That is, he's just another pol, who happened to be an actor too, not an actor who figured out he actually had something to say.</p> </p> </div></p> It's frustrating that even seemingly smart people like you are still going by personality over policy. The Bush presidency should be ample evidence that this is the wrong approach. All that should matterare policy proposals and the candidate's record. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'> It's frustrating that even seemingly smart people like you are still going by personality over policy. The Bush presidency should be ample evidence that this is the wrong approach. All that should matter are policy proposals and the candidate's record. </p> </div> If you're anti-war, then that would eliminate all the candidates but obama, paul, and kucinich. The others voted for or supported the war at the time. Sorry, but kucinich is an outright bozo.</p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'>It's frustrating that even seemingly smart people like you are still going by personality over policy. The Bush presidency should be ample evidence that this is the wrong approach. All that should matter are policy proposals and the candidate's record. </div></p> I'm not sure where you got it from that I'm ignoring those things. My praise for Guliani was largely based on his record of being highly successful at very hard to do... and even dangerous things.</p> </p> Personality, or more appropriately wisdom and decision-making ae important. That's way more than just "personality". My belief is that policy-making is largely a "group effort" (the president, congress, people, media, lobbyists, etc) and while a candidates' platform is somewhat important, it's also pretty hard to pin down. What does the guy actually believe? What will he compromise on? Is a proposal he makes serious, or just done for the sake of getting votes without any expectation it'll happen.</p> Also, I think all bets are off if something really important happens. I found Bush's "personality" slightly less annoying than Gore's (Gore himself is another political prince who's got about as much in common with you and me as the average martian), but there was little to suggest from Bush's "we should take a more humble approach to the rest of the world" and Gore's "we need to be ready to fight" spiel that a few years later Bush would be invading Iraq and Gore, who'd spent 8 years telling us what a bad boy Saddam was, would be giving six figure speeches to celebrities about how bad it was.</p> The terrifying (well, mildly vexing) truth is most of what either guy we have a choice between will do is a mystery. Their policies at this point are a bunch of hot air (often self-contradictory and in agreement with those of their opponents... just like real policies) and their track records are generally wildly inadequate to the level responsibility they're about to be handed. But hey, it's a fun way to kill time </p> </p>
I'm afraid I don't actively follow the race as much as I should, but in order to remove the recent history of partisan politics, I think Obama, Richardson or Paul are the two best candidates with Obama being the only candidate in the field that has satisfies my own qualifications and has a decent shot at the Presidency. I would really like to see an Obama, Richardson ticket.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'> It's frustrating that even seemingly smart people like you are still going by personality over policy. The Bush presidency should be ample evidence that this is the wrong approach. All that should matter are policy proposals and the candidate's record. </p> </div> If you're anti-war, then that would eliminate all the candidates but obama, paul, and kucinich. The others voted for or supported the war at the time. Sorry, but kucinich is an outright bozo.</p> </p> </p> </div></p> Well, I agree with the last bit, at least. Though his wife is hot. </p>
Current Story: Christopher Dodd's office burglarized.</p> Future Story: Christopher Dodd thanks burglar for raising public awareness of Christopher Dodd for President campaign.</p>
I voted for McCain last election just on a matter of principle. He'll get my vote again in 08.</p> Ron Paul is anti-abortion and that scares me. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> I voted for McCain last election just on a matter of principle. He'll get my vote again in 08.</p> Ron Paul is anti-abortion and that scares me. </p> </div></p> Libertarians can be religious, too.</p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> I voted for McCain last election just on a matter of principle. He'll get my vote again in 08.</p> Ron Paul is anti-abortion and that scares me. </p> </div></p> </p> McCain's also anti-abortion and thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught in science classes.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> I voted for McCain last election just on a matter of principle. He'll get my vote again in 08.</p> Ron Paul is anti-abortion and that scares me. </p> </div></p> </p> McCain's also anti-abortion and thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught in science classes.</p> </p> </div></p> I don't think this is true. My gripe with McCain is that his charm was his "straight talk express" thing, and since then, he's dumped that for pandering to constituencies, particularly the religious right.</p> EDIT:</p> QUESTION: [What's your stance on teaching creationism in schools?]</p> MCCAIN: I think that students should be exposed to every theory and every thought that we can...I don't like communism, but I think students should be exposed to communism.... There are people that believe this is the the way the earth was created. I'm not saying it should be forced on them, but I don't get this dispute....</p> QUESTION: But in science class?</p> MCCAIN: I'm not on the schoool board. I'd let them decide that. One of our fundamental beliefs is local control... </p> MCCAIN: I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view. I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> I voted for McCain last election just on a matter of principle. He'll get my vote again in 08.</p> Ron Paul is anti-abortion and that scares me. </p> </div></p> </p> McCain's also anti-abortion and thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught in science classes.</p> </p> </div></p> I don't think this is true. My gripe with McCain is that his charm was his "straight talk express" thing, and since then, he's dumped that for pandering to constituencies, particularly the religious right.</p> EDIT:</p> QUESTION: [What's your stance on teaching creationism in schools?]</p> MCCAIN: I think that students should be exposed to every theory and every thought that we can...I don't like communism, but I think students should be exposed to communism.... There are people that believe this is the the way the earth was created. I'm not saying it should be forced on them, but I don't get this dispute....</p> QUESTION: But in science class?</p> MCCAIN: I'm not on the schoool board. I'd let them decide that. One of our fundamental beliefs is local control... </p> MCCAIN: I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view. I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.</p> </div></p> </p> The interview I heard went more along these lines:</p> Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?</p> McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.</p> Daily Star: Does it belong in science?</p> McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.</p> </p> But while looking for that I found he has changed his stance numerous times on this and other issues. </p> </p> </p>
