Vote 2008. Presidential Race

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I didn't participate in the Iowa Caucuses. The man I wanted didn't run apparently here and will be focused on the New Hampshire primaries.

Just curious who do you want to see win the 2008 Presidential vote, come November.

I think they're all pretty much bores and douches. At least the front runners.


Now let me just say a couple of things...

I don't buy into the ******** that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to talk. I understand that there's a lot of confusion. Not everyone knows where to go to vote, not everyone has the time, and not everyone knows who to vote for so they chose not to vote.

I think that's a good idea. If I don't follow the issues, then it's better for me not to vote. I'd much rather have a country of 100,000 brilliant people who've done their research and thought about the issues to vote than 100,000,000 mindless drones in our country voting based on what moronic celebrity, i.e. Oprah or Chuck Norris is backing them. BS.

If you're too busy to follow the issues, don't understand politics, and such then I have more respect for you as a person if you don't vote. I don't buy into the whole stupidity of not voting = a bad citizen.

That said...

I don't much care for...

Obama... he seems very impersonal. I dislike his way of speaking and the way he presents himself. THere's something about him I don't trust and I don't think he has the forcefulness or even grace to be president. I know those two terms contradict each other but a president needs both, at the appropriate time. I also think he's banking on the youth vote, who wants to see a black president or something different, new, and fresh after GW.

Hillary Clinton... I don't think we need another Clinton or another Bush in office.

John Edwards... I looked at some of his old lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Silly malpractice suits. Sure some may have justification but we wonder why health care and health costs are such a big issue. People like Edwards contribute to this. I also dislike how he's beated the drum of his wife's cancer throughout the campaign.

As for the republicans, I haven't followed them as closely.

I do know I would not want Mike Huckabee at all. He seems to be a religious fanatic to me. He's very conservative and almost reactionary. I think he's a great speaker and a very intelligent person, but he's misguided. I don't want someone like him who would not put an end to the Iraq war and would use religion as a basis of his decisions in the office.


That said the person I support has no chance of becoming president... Mike Gravel.

I've listened to him talk... not in person of course, but over the internet and he seems to be sincere and very liberal. A true liberal that uses common sense and tries to think of the good of Americans, but also remembers that we do have a place to keep in an ever "flatening world." YEt he stills respects some isolationist views and knows we have to stick out for our own as well. He's for an immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Full gay marriage rights, health care vouchers (I'm already uneasy about universal health care) and the elimination of the income tax. That I'm not quite sure about.

But based on the person and their stances, he's the one that I seem to fit and mold best with. He's down to earth, has common sense, and doens't seem to play politcal games because he speaks his mind and isn't wishy washy like a Obama or Clinton.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/07/mike_gravel/story.jpg

[7thson]

Not everyone knows where to go to vote, not everyone has the time, and not everyone knows who to vote for so they chose not to vote.




I agree with a lot of what you have to say, except this: Not everyone knows where to go to vote........???? If you do not think your right to vote is a privilege given to you by sacrifice and if you are too fi'ng lazy to find out where to do so or too busy to care then you do not deserve the right to vote. Go to a country where tyrants and dictators run the show. I do not care if you vote or not, but if you want to and you do not because you are too ****kkkkkking stupid to find out where to do it then you need to go somewhere else. Good lord. Sorry if this sounds a bit rough, but get real, would you rather not even have the option?

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, except this: Not everyone knows where to go to vote........???? If you do not think your right to vote is a privilege given to you by sacrifice and if you are too fi'ng lazy to find out where to do so or too busy to care then you do not deserve the right to vote. Go to a country where tyrants and dictators run the show. I do not care if you vote or not, but if you want to and you do not because you are too ****kkkkkking stupid to find out where to do it then you need to go somewhere else. Good lord. Sorry if this sounds a bit rough, but get real, would you rather not even have the option?

Think about all the young people out there. Lord knows are schools don't always tell them this information. Also people have other things going on in their life. I know that if it wasn't for my government class in high school I would have had no idea how to register to vote and anything about the process back in 2000. Many aren't even aware of the absentee ballot.

And no it doesn't sound rough, it sounds ignorant and naive. Not everyone is educated on these things like you or I and has the iniative. But I do think you agree with me that people who aren't willing to do their homework, should not vote. However I'm not going to call them bad people because they don't find that information out. Each person has their own stresses and responsibilities.

[allthatglitters]

I don't buy into the ******** that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to talk. I understand that there's a lot of confusion. Not everyone knows where to go to vote, not everyone has the time, and not everyone knows who to vote for so they chose not to vote.

I think that's a good idea. If I don't follow the issues, then it's better for me not to vote. I'd much rather have a country of 100,000 brilliant people who've done their research and thought about the issues to vote than 100,000,000 mindless drones in our country voting based on what moronic celebrity, i.e. Oprah or Chuck Norris is backing them. BS.

If you're too busy to follow the issues, don't understand politics, and such then I have more respect for you as a person if you don't vote. I don't buy into the whole stupidity of not voting = a bad citizen.


If I had the energy or the philosophic chutzpah, I would totally want to get into an interesting discussion about elitism, responsible citizenry, the health of democracy, republicanism, and populism--but I am wiped.

Obama won't hold the youth vote--he won't lose it, but he won't hold it. Youth don't vote. If the recent caucus in Iowa is any indication (and the last congressional election) voting is up, but not among the youth.

Edwards is running on class warfare, and he's unelectable. The economy will be a big issue, but I don't think when put under scrutiny, that populism resonates as well with voters as it does with the left.

HRC is not in a good spot right now. The chatter of her crashing and burning has a lot of truth to it. She's been the front runner for the Democrats since, what, 2005? She's losing her inevitability though. She loses points when she attacks her opponent on experience, and whines everytime she thinks she's being treated unfairly (Reality Check: She was the front runner. She's raised the most money in this race <<I am pretty certain>>> She's not the underdog). I think she was sincerely crying today. Okay. I mean, she can't fake much. Remember the accent? Remember that cackle?
She's going to lose in New Hampshire tomorrow--no she isn't going to come behind Richardson, but she is going to lose by not winning. Obama pulled away a lot of Hillary voters after his large victory in Iowa.

The Republican race is much, much more interesting.

A Huckabee nomination would effectively dissolve the Reagan Coalition. In my more depressed moments I think it would ruin the GOP; in my more optimistic moments I think that a Huckabee nomination would only just prevent a Goldwater conservative from winning anything for a very long time.

A McCain nomination has a similar, though not as bad, adverse affect. McCain is the most experienced candidate in both fields, and pretty electable. However, as President he would be the leader of the Republican party and he's broken line with so many top Republicans and so much of the GOP base that I do not think that in a time of policy crisis that he could effectively unite his party together.

Take note though: The problems most conservatives have with Huckabee are ideological: he's basically a socially conservative populist--brilliant politician though, and that's the scary thing. While the problems most conservatives have with McCain have to do with poor policy choices--for example, campaign finance reform makes my blood boil.

Thompson suffered from too much media hype. He is a principled conservative, but he didn't fit people's expectations. In a fluid, wide open field he was perceived as being slow and it's sometimes as if he doesn't even want to be President.

Romney needs to win tomorrrow. I don't think he will. He had a hard time defending himself last Saturday, but according to focus groups did much better on Sunday. He didn't even come close to touching Huckabee in Iowa, and he needs New Hampshire to gain momentum (the Big Mo'.) However, remember this: 61% of Iowan republicans go to church on Sunday, compared to 30% nationwide. Iowan Republicans are traditionally more evengelical, and the evangelical turn out last Thursday was phenomenal--I forget the number, but it was something crazy.

Mostly what this points to is a Republican race that could last longer than normal.

Oh, and...Giuliani who? Now, I know he's focusing on big wins on Super Tuesday, but losing to Ron Paul tomorrow would be bad voodoo (Giuliani's at +8 something and Paul is at +7.)

But we'll see. The field is wide open, four viable candidates with serious scenarios for winning the nomination, and so the nomination is up for grabs.

[mark f]

Your sample ballot and general election information are always mailed to the home with the address you registered at, but if you have moved or are a student who has changed locations, it can be difficult. However, if you bothered to register in the first place, you're probably aware of this; if you never did, you can't vote, so I guess it doesn't matter.

As far as Iowa and New Hampshire go, I don't recall them ever being that flippin' important, but if someone wants to produce some historic info, I'll change my tune.

[allthatglitters]

As far as Iowa and New Hampshire go, I don't recall them ever being that flippin' important, but if someone wants to produce some historic info, I'll change my tune.

It has to do with momentum and perception. If something is perceived as being important enough, it can be. Punditry bemoans the "front runner" effect of Iowa and New Hampshire as much as it creates it. They do matter, not as much as they think they matter, but as much as they are perceived to matter.

Historically, no, the winners in New Hampshire and Iowa haven't been that significant (didn't Robertson win Iowa in 88 or 92?), but they do change the dynamics of the race.

Iowa made Huckabee a legitimate threat. Romney losing by 9 points to Huckabee does matter in as much as it hurts Romney a lot, changing the dynamics of the race.

Hillary taking third does matter. How she responded, how voters in NH quickly switched to Obama--it all affects the race (not necessarily causes effects.)

[ImNotGibson]

Excellent thread. I was gonna start one with this exact same topic yesterday.

I had a lot of fun watching the debates on Saturday, especially the Republican one (the Dem. one was pretty much Edwards and Obama being all buddy-buddy and teaming up on Hillary). I gotta learn a lot more about the candidates and now have very definitive opinions of each of them.

I can't believe how much of a douche bag Thompson was being (I think this was the first Rep. debate I saw with him in it) and ALT is absolutely right about him seeming at times as if he doesn't even want to be president. He spent more time taking potshots than making comments of substance.

I kind of felt bad for Ron Paul (does he remind anyone else of Kucinich?). Everybody else on that stage united together to make him look like a complete fool. Which sucks when the whole country is watching and expecting to learn more about the candidates and where they stand on the issues. That being said I don't agree with Ron Paul on much other than we need to pull out of Iraq.

McCain, I like. He's always been one of the better Republicans in my opinion, but he wasn't on his A-game Saturday night. He seemed pretty comfortable sitting there and letting everybody do their thing. He probably should've kept his head in the game because Romney caught him off-guard and tore him up. Neither of them looked good during that little tussle.

I didn't know much about Mitt so it was interesting watching him. He, like Thompson, was content with being an a-hole for the duration of the debate. Jumping on McCain's back when it came to immigration policies, talking down to Ron Paul, trash talking the Democrats, and hogging the mike. And when he wasn't praising Bush he was scaring me half to death with his thoughts on the military. One thing I gotta give him props for is he's got the hottest wife of the bunch.

Huckabee did a really good job, he was very articulate, very civil (compared to the others), and he probably came out looking the best that night. I was so happy to see him put his foot down and at least attempt to shut up Romney when he started going on about his position(s) on the surge. I looked up where he stands on the issues and even though I don't agree with a lot of what he thinks, I'd much rather see him in office than all the others, except McCain.

And as far as Giuliani goes... goodness. God help us all if he becomes president.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

As far as Iowa and New Hampshire go, I don't recall them ever being that flippin' important, but if someone wants to produce some historic info, I'll change my tune.

Didn't both states smash Howard Dean four years ago ?

[mark f]

Like I said, Howard Who? I thought his performances in a debate or two fried his hash.

[Memnon]

I realize I might be very wrong here, but it seems to me, more and more, that people in this country are becoming lemmings, that they are just going to follow what the others around them are doing, and not think for themselves. Its just far too evident to me in the massive swing in the polls on the Democratic side. All those people didn't suddenly realize "hey, Obama is the guy for me". They didn't know who they wanted to vote for, but the media made such a huge deal out of his win in Iowa, that those people just sort of shrugged their shoulders and said "hey, why not Obama, he won there... I don't really know if I completely agree with him, but he must be the one to vote for!"

I'm being simplistic with all that, but I really do think a lot of what happens at this point is as much a case of what others appear to be doing/what the media says, as people actually thinking for themselves and deciding who they would personally like to see president.

Here's how I personally see some of the candidates, keeping in mind that I'm a bit more democratic leaning, but not in everything;

Edwards - just a bit too "slick" feeling for the general public, while he has some good ideas, he mainly feels like someone who wants to be president not because of the good he could do for the country, but for what the office could do for him (loosely paraphrasing a famous line by a past pres.)

Obama - While I would like to see someone like him win, someone who really does seem to want to make a difference, make things in DC different, he is not the right person. He honestly doesn't have the right kind of experience in my mind to not get overwhelmed by the lunacy in Washington right now. If he became president, I think he would end up being eaten up by the politics, become highly ineffective, and yet stick to his guns that things should change in specific ways "NOW", as his message went down in flames. The general population may say they want changes, but the government in Washington isn't quite as ready, and they will fight him every step of the way, and he would be out of there in 4 years. The one thing I have never really heard from him is just how he intends to make all these big changes he wants. He is big on words, but I don't see him being able to back those words up.

Clinton - In many ways, I see her as being just about as slick as Edwards, but for one big difference. While she does like, and want the limelight of being president, I think she also seriously wants to change the way things are done at the federal level. She wants to make changes, like Obama, but has been a part of the Washington culture long enough to know that things don't change that fast there, so she tempers her message. She knows how "the game" is played, and is willing to play that game to get the things done as president that she sees as important. The problem is, I can also see how I could be completely wrong about her, and find out that all she wants is the presidency, not because she wants to do anything to help the country, but just because. She may be just so slick, that I'm reading her totally wrong.

Huckabee - He certainly adds an interesting dimension to the race, but I'm always very concerned when a VERY religious person, of any creed, seeks the presidency. I am a huge proponent of the separation of church and state, and highly religious people in a secular position, especially the presidency, and especially if that person feels that their religion should be reflected in the laws and such at the federal level, is of major concern to me. I'm not sure just how much his religion would impact his decisions as president, but my first guess would be... quite a bit.

McCain - If I was more in tune with his politics across the board, I could actually see myself considering voting for him. He has the right experience, has some good ideas, and just has that presidential type of feel around him. One big thing against him though in my mind - his age. I don't have issues with older people in general, heck, my parents are 74 and 75, and I know a number of people over the age of 65, and while they are great people, with impressive life experiences, they are also, well... physically old, and prone to the issues of aging. I see what being president does to people physically, and I can't see how he could survive it really, especially a second term.

Romney - I honestly don't know as much about him as I'd like, to get a better feel for how he would be as a president. All I can say is that I don't think I'd be voting for him, as what I have heard sounds fairly conservative, and "republican", and that's not for me. If he ended up being the Republican nominee, I'd have to pay far more attention to his ideas before making a final decision though.

Thompson - Thompson just really doesn't belong as president. We have had actors become president before, but I have to say, I was never a fan of Reagan. Even though I was only in my teens while he was president, I can still remember never being happy with the way things were run by him. At least he had charisma to an extent, he was able to be effective in his own way by sheer force of will. I just don't see that in Thompson. Besides, I just don't see him as having the right kind of experience to handle the job of president either.

Guliani - Having lived within a few hours drive of NYC all my life, I have heard plenty about Rudy, and when I say plenty, I mean that I would be happy if I didn't hear another word. He is the only candidate that, if he became president, would make me expressly very, very concerned for the future of our country.


...and after all that.. I'll be damned if I'm gonna proofread.. if there are mistakes.. live with it... mwahahahaha!!

[Sir Toose]

I kind of felt bad for Ron Paul (does he remind anyone else of Kucinich?). Everybody else on that stage united together to make him look like a complete fool. Which sucks when the whole country is watching and expecting to learn more about the candidates and where they stand on the issues. That being said I don't agree with Ron Paul on much other than we need to pull out of Iraq.


His ideas, put into action, would certainly shake the establishment to the core. I would vote for him in an instant but I have no delusions that he's a viable candidate (for the aforementioned reason). I like his foreign policy, his stand on taxes and the IRS, his stance on border security and pretty much everything else the man says. IMNSHO Dr. Paul is the best candidate to set America right again.

[allthatglitters]

I had a lot of fun watching the debates on Saturday, especially the Republican one (the Dem. one was pretty much Edwards and Obama being all buddy-buddy and teaming up on Hillary). I gotta learn a lot more about the candidates and now have very definitive opinions of each of them.

It was a good debate. The "what if Obama is the nominee" question was stupid though, and a total waste of time.

I can't believe how much of a douche bag Thompson was being (I think this was the first Rep. debate I saw with him in it) and ALT is absolutely right about him seeming at times as if he doesn't even want to be president. He spent more time taking potshots than making comments of substance.

I kind of felt bad for Ron Paul (does he remind anyone else of Kucinich?). Everybody else on that stage united together to make him look like a complete fool. Which sucks when the whole country is watching and expecting to learn more about the candidates and where they stand on the issues. That being said I don't agree with Ron Paul on much other than we need to pull out of Iraq.

McCain, I like. He's always been one of the better Republicans in my opinion, but he wasn't on his A-game Saturday night. He seemed pretty comfortable sitting there and letting everybody do their thing. He probably should've kept his head in the game because Romney caught him off-guard and tore him up. Neither of them looked good during that little tussle.

I didn't know much about Mitt so it was interesting watching him. He, like Thompson, was content with being an a-hole for the duration of the debate. Jumping on McCain's back when it came to immigration policies, talking down to Ron Paul, trash talking the Democrats, and hogging the mike. And when he wasn't praising Bush he was scaring me half to death with his thoughts on the military. One thing I gotta give him props for is he's got the hottest wife of the bunch.

Huckabee did a really good job, he was very articulate, very civil (compared to the others), and he probably came out looking the best that night. I was so happy to see him put his foot down and at least attempt to shut up Romney when he started going on about his position(s) on the surge. I looked up where he stands on the issues and even though I don't agree with a lot of what he thinks, I'd much rather see him in office than all the others, except McCain.

And as far as Giuliani goes... goodness. God help us all if he becomes president.

Did we watch the same debate?

Thompson was "even-keeled" (to borrow from Thomas Sowell's column) in comparison to McCain, and I thought he did well last Saturday night. He had a few one-liners, but if you've been watching the debates, then you understand that they all exchange barbs (The best came from Giuliani to Thompson on how he did the job Thompson played on television). It's politics.

I felt a little sorry for Ron Paul too (though not so much today after the stuff coming from TNR), but when he starts going on about the monetary system...
And listen, the debates are supposed to allow candidates to differentiate themselves from one another--Paul represents the old, isolationist, paleo-con wing of the Right, and a major bloc of Republican voters, the National Security wing, want to see candidates with (in their view) steady "peace through strength" style foreign policy.

McCain was not at his best (though it obviously didn't hurt him, more on the NH results below). His contentious temperment is well-known. I think he avoided the amnesty issue when Romney brought it up by lashing out at Romney.

Romney was the target, and he didn't do the best job defending himself. There's real animosity between him and McCain. He could have used the amnesty moment to make a clear picture of his position, but instead he responded to McCain. He even came off as a bit of a whiner. Still, he was put on the spot the most last Saturday.

Huckabee didn't do very well at all. He was evasive and not nearly as articulate as he usually is. I do not think he is the best pick, but he's the most natural politician in the Republican field.

Didn't both states smash Howard Dean four years ago ?

Dean smashed Dean.

Like I said, Howard Who? I thought his performances in a debate or two fried his hash.

Four years ago, right? I thought it was his performance at a few rallies...

Well, now he's chairman of the DNC, and he still says stupid stuff. Last Thursday after the Iowa results came in, he was being interviewed on CNN and he derided Mike Huckabee's win, said he was only the governor of some insignificant state (Arkansas). Of course, Bill Clinton came out of Arkansas. Not only that, but both governors were born in the some town, Hope.

I realize I might be very wrong here, but it seems to me, more and more, that people in this country are becoming lemmings, that they are just going to follow what the others around them are doing, and not think for themselves. Its just far too evident to me in the massive swing in the polls on the Democratic side. All those people didn't suddenly realize "hey, Obama is the guy for me". They didn't know who they wanted to vote for, but the media made such a huge deal out of his win in Iowa, that those people just sort of shrugged their shoulders and said "hey, why not Obama, he won there... I don't really know if I completely agree with him, but he must be the one to vote for!"

I'm being simplistic with all that, but I really do think a lot of what happens at this point is as much a case of what others appear to be doing/what the media says, as people actually thinking for themselves and deciding who they would personally like to see president.

I don't think people switched from Hillary to Obama because the media hype around his win in Iowa--I think that Hillary is losing her inevitability. She only won by 3% in NH, hardly a victory, and it was, as they say, touch and go there for a minute. This is a weird twist on populist thinking that discounts American voting minds to some extent. People base their voting decisions on some weird stuff, some of it they pick up from the media, but I think it's a little cynical (and even paranoid) to say the media is pulling all the strings here and telling people who to vote for. Yesterday, there was a lot of dancing around (on both sides) in the blogosphere and pundit class that Hillary could be finished. Obviously she's not dead yet (mostly dead, Miracle Max might say.)


Edwards - just a bit too "slick" feeling for the general public, while he has some good ideas, he mainly feels like someone who wants to be president not because of the good he could do for the country, but for what the office could do for him (loosely paraphrasing a famous line by a past pres.)

Edwards was a trial lawyer. Of course he's slick. This has always stuck with me. Listen, I don't agree with his policies, but this comes from Bob Shrum via Powerline:


It isn't exactly news that John Edwards is a phony, but I suppose it's news that John Kerry considers him one. According to Michael Crowley of the New Republic, Bob Shrum, Kerry's campaign manager, will report in a forthcoming book that Kerry had qualms about choosing Edwards as his presidential running mate in 2004, and became "even queasier" after Edwards said he was going to share a story with Kerry he had never told anyone else. The story was that after Edwards' son, Wade, had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home and hugged his body and promised that he would do all he could to make life better for people.


According to Shrum,Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.Apparently, though, Edwards' chilling insincerity was not seared in Kerry's consciousness because, as we all know, Kerry went ahead and selected Edwards to be his running mate. Shrum says Kerry came to regret this decision, thinking that he should have followed his "gut" and gone with Richard Gephardt.


Obama - While I would like to see someone like him win, someone who really does seem to want to make a difference, make things in DC different, he is not the right person. He honestly doesn't have the right kind of experience in my mind to not get overwhelmed by the lunacy in Washington right now. If he became president, I think he would end up being eaten up by the politics, become highly ineffective, and yet stick to his guns that things should change in specific ways "NOW", as his message went down in flames. The general population may say they want changes, but the government in Washington isn't quite as ready, and they will fight him every step of the way, and he would be out of there in 4 years. The one thing I have never really heard from him is just how he intends to make all these big changes he wants. He is big on words, but I don't see him being able to back those words up.

I would agree with most of that. He's Jimmy Carter without the experience. He's all rhetoric, and doesn't have the inside knowledge to accomplish what he wants.

Clinton - In many ways, I see her as being just about as slick as Edwards, but for one big difference. While she does like, and want the limelight of being president, I think she also seriously wants to change the way things are done at the federal level. She wants to make changes, like Obama, but has been a part of the Washington culture long enough to know that things don't change that fast there, so she tempers her message. She knows how "the game" is played, and is willing to play that game to get the things done as president that she sees as important. The problem is, I can also see how I could be completely wrong about her, and find out that all she wants is the presidency, not because she wants to do anything to help the country, but just because. She may be just so slick, that I'm reading her totally wrong.

No, you're not wrong. But listen, she may know the game, but she didn't really play it until her Senate career. As First Lady she didn't hold top security clearance, she didn't sit in on meetings, and the health care reform that makes up such a big part of resume didn't go through.

Huckabee - He certainly adds an interesting dimension to the race, but I'm always very concerned when a VERY religious person, of any creed, seeks the presidency. I am a huge proponent of the separation of church and state, and highly religious people in a secular position, especially the presidency, and especially if that person feels that their religion should be reflected in the laws and such at the federal level, is of major concern to me. I'm not sure just how much his religion would impact his decisions as president, but my first guess would be... quite a bit.

I think that's a misinterpretation of what separation of church and state should mean. I think it's perfectly acceptable for somebody of deep faith to be president. I think that it is alright that they allow this deep faith to inform their views. Romney's "Religion" speech illustrated the balance needed perfectly I think.

I do not think it appropriate for a President to use his office to "Take this nation back for Christ" as Huckabee has said is his purpose in politics. I am also concerned that he attributes his rise in Iowa to "the same power that turned two loaves of bread and five fish into enough to feed five thousand."

McCain - If I was more in tune with his politics across the board, I could actually see myself considering voting for him. He has the right experience, has some good ideas, and just has that presidential type of feel around him. One big thing against him though in my mind - his age. I don't have issues with older people in general, heck, my parents are 74 and 75, and I know a number of people over the age of 65, and while they are great people, with impressive life experiences, they are also, well... physically old, and prone to the issues of aging. I see what being president does to people physically, and I can't see how he could survive it really, especially a second term.

Interesting. McCain still has a lot of fight in him, and he looks young. I think that in a possible McCain/Obama match-up, McCain wins because of his experience.

Thompson - Thompson just really doesn't belong as president. We have had actors become president before, but I have to say, I was never a fan of Reagan. Even though I was only in my teens while he was president, I can still remember never being happy with the way things were run by him. At least he had charisma to an extent, he was able to be effective in his own way by sheer force of will. I just don't see that in Thompson. Besides, I just don't see him as having the right kind of experience to handle the job of president either.

I have to disagree about Reagan, and about Thompson to a certain extent. I don't think he's the most experienced, but he isn't just a former actor. He was a lawyer in D.C during the Nixon administration, and he served six years as a Senator. Personally, I think he's less of an executive and more of an advisor.

His ideas, put into action, would certainly shake the establishment to the core. I would vote for him in an instant but I have no delusions that he's a viable candidate (for the aforementioned reason). I like his foreign policy, his stand on taxes and the IRS, his stance on border security and pretty much everything else the man says. IMNSHO Dr. Paul is the best candidate to set America right again.

I think it's an odd turn of events when Ron Paul, whose only real "sin" with the GOP base is his isolationism, is tossed out in the cold over Mike Huckabee who is only a strong conservative on the social issues (the man wants a National Smoking Ban! We all know what Barry Goldwater would have said to that...) BeAuH2o's son, Barry Jr., BTW is supporting Paul, but I think that Goldwater would have strongly disagreed with Paul on foreign policy.

More later.

[Memnon]

I don't think people switched from Hillary to Obama because the media hype around his win in Iowa--I think that Hillary is losing her inevitability. She only won by 3% in NH, hardly a victory, and it was, as they say, touch and go there for a minute. This is a weird twist on populist thinking that discounts American voting minds to some extent. People base their voting decisions on some weird stuff, some of it they pick up from the media, but I think it's a little cynical (and even paranoid) to say the media is pulling all the strings here and telling people who to vote for. Yesterday, there was a lot of dancing around (on both sides) in the blogosphere and pundit class that Hillary could be finished. Obviously she's not dead yet (mostly dead, Miracle Max might say.)

First off, I'm very glad to have my thoughts that people were just being lemmings proven at least somewhat wrong...

However, you say she "only" won by 3% and that makes it hardly a victory. I think you are wrong there. The fact that she won at all makes it a big victory, especially after all the crap with the polls after Iowa, and so many people, including, and especially a pretty large portion of the media saying that her ship is sinking, or whatever term you want to use.
I do have to make something clear here.. I never said the media is pulling all the strings in the election. They are a major influence, yes, but I don't see them as some sort of shadow conspiracy or something. If someone were to say to me that the influence the media has is negligible, I would strongly disagree.
I normally don't take too kindly to jabs at me, especially when they are coming from an argument that is twisting what I said, attempting to make my comments appear to be something they aren't... but then again... maybe I am somewhat cynical about the election process that we use in this country, and how backwards it is nowadays (most specifically about how the absolute popular vote really doesn't mean anything), and it filters over to all parts of the elections...



No, you're not wrong. But listen, she may know the game, but she didn't really play it until her Senate career. As First Lady she didn't hold top security clearance, she didn't sit in on meetings, and the health care reform that makes up such a big part of resume didn't go through.

If you think she wasn't a major role player in what was done and not done in a lot of things while her husband was president, and that she just sat on the sidelines, I think you are being a bit naive, and so what if the health care reform didn't go through... Do you think that everything she went through in trying to get that pushed through doesn't count as real world DC politics experience? Just because something you do isn't successful, doesn't mean you come away with no experience from doing that thing.



I think that's a misinterpretation of what separation of church and state should mean. I think it's perfectly acceptable for somebody of deep faith to be president. I think that it is alright that they allow this deep faith to inform their views. Romney's "Religion" speech illustrated the balance needed perfectly I think.

I'm not going to get into the separation of church and state discussion all over again. That happened once before with me in this forum, and it just didn't go in very good directions (mostly because things got off topic, but still, I have no desire to start it up again). I would like to say though, that I do feel that someone being vocal about how their religion, or whatever aspects thereof, play an important part in how they would run this country as president, is creating a link between church and state that shouldn't be allowed.

[Sir Toose]

I think it's an odd turn of events when Ron Paul, whose only real "sin" with the GOP base is his isolationism, is tossed out in the cold over Mike Huckabee who is only a strong conservative on the social issues (the man wants a National Smoking Ban! We all know what Barry Goldwater would have said to that...) BeAuH2o's son, Barry Jr., BTW is supporting Paul, but I think that Goldwater would have strongly disagreed with Paul on foreign policy.
More later.

Hello

You went and grew up on us didn't you? Your posts in this thread are impressive, kudos to you!

Yeah, I do hate seeing Dr. Paul getting so little traction in the media. For my own personal belief system he's the guy and he'll be getting my vote. I would think that some conservative fatcats are less than enthused with his ideas RE: reverting to the gold standard and shutting down the IRS. Not a real 'sin' to them but it would actually make them practice what they preach.

[7thson]

And no it doesn't sound rough, it sounds ignorant and naive. Not everyone is educated on these things like you or I and has the iniative.


Only thing I wanted to get across here was if a person wants to vote and just does not because they do not know how then they are more lazy, than ignorant. It just seems that the division in the country is almost 50/50 on a lot of issues so votes count more than ever in recent history. If anyone of you out there really wants to vote then do it, if you do not want to vote then don't. I just wish more people would understand the wonderful rights we have as Americans and how lucky we are.

[allthatglitters]

I do have to make something clear here.. I never said the media is pulling all the strings in the election. They are a major influence, yes, but I don't see them as some sort of shadow conspiracy or something. If someone were to say to me that the influence the media has is negligible, I would strongly disagree.
I normally don't take too kindly to jabs at me, especially when they are coming from an argument that is twisting what I said, attempting to make my comments appear to be something they aren't... but then again... maybe I am somewhat cynical about the election process that we use in this country, and how backwards it is nowadays (most specifically about how the absolute popular vote really doesn't mean anything), and it filters over to all parts of the elections...


I wasn't going to use the word "paranoid," but I went ahead with it when I should of devoted a sentence or two to explain what I meant. It wasn't intended as a jab, and I wasn't exercising good judgement in word choice when I replied.

I generally react strongly against the instinct to label Americans as lemmings (it's what keeps me from being a cultural declinist, almost). I definitely think that the media has a wide influence with American people, in fact see my half-way defense of the horserace affect above. I also understand that you don't think that Americans aren't capable of making responsible choices in voting (at least I hope that's what you think).

Here's where I am: In high school, a lot of my friends made extra credit videos for AP U.S History and AP U.S Gov. that involved them going to the mall and asking random strangers about political figures and celebrities, sort of like Letterman. The most common version was asking people to identify U.S Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, the SecDef, the SecState, the VP, and then POTUS. They then asked them to identify celebrities Britney Spears, George Clooney, and Mariah Carey (a poor sample of celebrity except Clooney). Everybody in class was laughing at these videos, and calling these people total idiots when they got things like SecDef wrong. Some answers were very funny, but there was a type of intellectual elitism hidden in the laughter that I disliked.

First, the "test" was superficial. Asking people to identify by picture political figures, that are normally not as highly visualised in the media, doesn't say much. Most of the people knew who the picture was of, but they didn't recognize their face. I've spent the past two years reading the news daily, nightly, and ever so rightly, and I don't always immediately recognize Robert Gates. However, celebrities survive by their image, literally and figuratively.

So my friends were immediately discounting these people as lemmings and idiots for not recognizing the faces of political officials (Bush and Cheney were recognized 100% of the time), even though most of them knew who Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein were. They lamented the state of the nation's voters. And I thought, "So what? So they don't watch CNN or FOX every night. This says little about their capacity to make wise judgements about candidates and isn't an apt description of their grasp on the system of American Democracy. Even if this guy isn't as active a participant in the system as I am, does that make me better somehow? He probably works hard, providing for his family. Doesn't that amount to something?"

The test didn't look for these people's knowledge of the American concept, or American ideals, things that I believe are more accurate indicators of voting conscience and of responsible citizens.

I think that elitism can be a proper and good thing. It should be encouraged even, but not this intellectual elitism that discounts more than half of America based on their response to superficial questions. Sometimes the intellectuals and the pundits never leave the world of academia and opinion, and they get frustrated with the outside for not behaving in the way they see fit.

I care deeply about America, and I have a great interest in politics. I used to easily lose my temper in the face of what I determined to be ignorance. My father brings me back to earth a lot. He says, "I know you think that what's on C-span right now is of upmost importance, but I would rather have you do the job I need you to do right now. I would rather have you read your Bible or talk with your mother than care so much, and try to force other people to care as you do, about things that are trivial and tiny in the comparison to everything else."

The focus should be on values, not the game.

I believe that we need to be responsible citizens. Condescension and disregard is not the way to encourage good citizenship though. I believe we do need to know more about our country's history and her ideals. A lot of these ideals are found in hard work, and the family. These are ideals familiar to everyday Americans, and they help make the foundations of American opinion.

I agree that the media doesn't do the best job in making it easier for the American public to view candidates in issues in ways that best use our traditions and values as a formula for opinion. I could go on, but that was a lot, and I don't want to pull the thread off course.


If you think she wasn't a major role player in what was done and not done in a lot of things while her husband was president, and that she just sat on the sidelines, I think you are being a bit naive, and so what if the health care reform didn't go through... Do you think that everything she went through in trying to get that pushed through doesn't count as real world DC politics experience? Just because something you do isn't successful, doesn't mean you come away with no experience from doing that thing.


I think that she is the most competent politician on the Democratic side. Obama is obviously the most naturally talented politcian, but Hillary does have the inside knowledge on how things work. She understands the mechanics of the game very well, but that doesn't guarantee success. A lot of her campaign has been about her experience as First Lady. She gained a lot of diplomatic experience, yes. But as far as the type of decision-making experience that she claims to have, I don't think she can claim to have it. She can claim to have watched decisons being made, but she wasn't the one making them always, especially in issues of National Security.


However, you say she "only" won by 3% and that makes it hardly a victory. I think you are wrong there. The fact that she won at all makes it a big victory, especially after all the crap with the polls after Iowa, and so many people, including, and especially a pretty large portion of the media saying that her ship is sinking, or whatever term you want to use.


It's only a victory if she wins in South Carolina, if she loses to Obama, she gains nothing by winning NH (she breaks even). I have to eat some humble pie here, I thought she was going to lose. She's not out of the woods yet though, and much of this victory-hype is going to be spent on a grand return. I don't think the media or the pundits had enough time to ignore her and that's why she won, but a lot of time was spent celebrating her demise (along with the Clinton Dynasty.) It was close, and I'll deliver some better analysis after I look more closely at the break down of voters. It was a very close race though, and while Hillary's spinning this as a big victory, I think that there's still some panic. Also, you could hypothesize that this looks more like a victory because the media was so sure she would lose. I mean, a lot of people were shocked. I don't think the media has been shocked by a Clinton victory since the early nineties.


I'm not going to get into the separation of church and state discussion all over again. That happened once before with me in this forum, and it just didn't go in very good directions (mostly because things got off topic, but still, I have no desire to start it up again). I would like to say though, that I do feel that someone being vocal about how their religion, or whatever aspects thereof, play an important part in how they would run this country as president, is creating a link between church and state that shouldn't be allowed.


I can respect that. I do think we need to recognize our Judeo-Christian roots though and their influence on our government and laws.



I think this exlains my view of the religious persons role in government (italics mine): Although Christians are called to serve in the world, including politics, they are not sanctioned to use the political sword of the magistrate for spiritual purposes. Since Christ and politics are separate, the Christian calling is not to become a politically religious activist, but rather to serve in the public square in a God-honoring way without imposing explicit Christian principles on others.

The American version of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith puts the point this way (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxiii): “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever…” [I]The political leader, although Christian he or she may be, is not a “Christian” leader as such, but a leader for all peoples.




You went and grew up on us didn't you? Your posts in this thread are impressive, kudos to you!

Yeah, I do hate seeing Dr. Paul getting so little traction in the media. For my own personal belief system he's the guy and he'll be getting my vote. I would think that some conservative fatcats are less than enthused with his ideas RE: reverting to the gold standard and shutting down the IRS. Not a real 'sin' to them but it would actually make them practice what they preach.



Thanks!

Yeah. I've seen the most opposition to his foreign policy (and of course his electability.) I think that the GOP is going to need some sort of tonic for the big-G small Government brought on by compassionate conservatism (to a certain extent), and practiced by Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think that tonic is going to be in Ron Paul.



7thson, I completely agree.

[undercoverlover]

i have a pretty standard knowledge of the current race so forgive if there are gaping potholes in my judgements

Clinton - started out so solidly but has somehow slipped and i think will continue to. Her 'victory' in NH is meaningless and shes not coming on strong enough in tough areas. However she is a game player, shes had an inside look at the process and she's no fool. But i don't think she'll win the vote. Plus i cant look at her without seeing Emma Thompson.

Barack Obama - I like the look of his immigration policies, not much to say about him at this point

John Edwards - slick isnt the word - slippery. I heard talk about how much Edwards earns and how it conflict with his ability to relate to 'real' people. So what if he's rich - he's not going be supplying the country's budget so it what does it matter? That said I agree with a lot of his views but only on paper - vigorous promises like his tend to fall through the hardest


Give this a try - see if your political views actually match up with your chosen candidate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/

[ImNotGibson]

Hey ALT all those quotes in your last post weren't mine. Just wanted to let you know. But I totally agree with you about Clinton and Obama.

[allthatglitters]

Hey ALT all those quotes in your last post weren't mine. Just wanted to let you know.

Ackk, you're right. I apologize for the misquote to both parties involved.

[ImNotGibson]

Do any of you buy into what some news stories are saying about Hillary faking that mini-breakdown on the eve of the New Hampshire primary?

Here's a link for those who haven't seen it:
For you consideration (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk)

I personally don't have a conclusive opinion about that. It might've helped score her some more of the female vote (she got 47% or something like that right?) but I honestly doubt she'd stoop that low and she seems very genuine during it.

Strike that non-conclusive bit actually. I think she was being real.

And I got my voter info in the mail today! :D

[Equilibrium]

Excellent thread I've been doing alot of close watching and reading for this race.

It seems we have several candidates who are plausible as president. I originally had Senator Joe Biden in mind, but he strategically dropped out of the race early (he did this so that he doesn't damage any of the other candidates and thus making him a frontrunner for VP for either clinton or obama...dodd did the same thing)

I think Obama has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination..but he has to face a hillary that is deeply rooted in this race..she already has 160 delegates while Obama only has 89. Even though she beat him in New Hampshire they received the same amount of delegates from that states (9 a piece).

On the republican side, I think romney (BLAKH) and mcaine will be battling it out. Ideally I'd like to see Ron Paul step out of the race and keep his chances for VP as well.. I dislike romney very much. I think hes a bible freak in disguise.

If I had to project anything happening at the moment...and I'm bound to change this later unless i have incredible foresight...Obama will win the dem nomination and take Joe biden as his VP. Huckabee will likely win the repub nomination and take either mccain or romney as the VP.

We'll see...

[allthatglitters]

On the republican side, I think romney (BLAKH) and mcaine will be battling it out. Ideally I'd like to see Ron Paul step out of the race and keep his chances for VP as well.. I dislike romney very much. I think hes a bible freak in disguise.

If I had to project anything happening at the moment...and I'm bound to change this later unless i have incredible foresight...Obama will win the dem nomination and take Joe biden as his VP. Huckabee will likely win the repub nomination and take either mccain or romney as the VP.

We'll see...

Huckabee has a plausible scenario for winning the nomination, but it dpends on how well he does in SC and if he lets that momentum carry him. A Huckabee win would be disastrous for conservatives and the G.O.P alike, although I believe his affect on the party would only be temporary. He would destroy the Reagan coalition. Fortunately, I do not think that he will be the nominee. Unlikely, but politics cannot be an exact science, as we all saw with the Democrats in New Hampshire. Maybe more on how the media got that situtation wrong later.

Romney and McCain are battling out indeed, in Michigan. McCain is hoping for momentum after his NH win, and Romney needs to finish first this time (He's taken silver so far). McCain is surging nationally too.

I am really surprised that you label Romney as a "bible freak in disguise." I think that as far as religiosity goes, he can't touch Huckabee there. His speech on religion at the George H. Bush Library is a must read on the subject, and it should assuage most fears.

I thought that you MoFo's would really enjoy this. A little Hitchcock and politics perhaps? Bill Katz has sporadically written in to Powerline, one of the many blogs I read daily, and in this post he writes about the lessons Hitchcock has for politicians. Bill Katz worked in Hollywood for many years in various venues (including The Tonight Show back in the good ole' days), and counts among his former employers both the CIA and the New York Times.


I'd been thinking of writing about Alfred Hitchcock, a great film director, and a man who understood more about people than any director I know, indeed any person I know. I kept putting it off but, today, remarkably, I got an e-mail from a reader who has a name close to that of a Hitchcock character -- Thornhill. (Name the film.) That was the omen I needed. So Hitch is on the menu. So is the 2008 election. There is a merger there.

Alfred Hitchcock, known as the master of suspense, was born in England in 1899 and died in California in 1980. Since you are worldly Power Line readers, you probably know most of his great films - "Rear Window," "North by Northwest," "Strangers on a Train," "Vertigo," "The Man Who Knew too Much," "Psycho," "Dial M for Murder," "The Birds," and others. If you are young, and sinking in the muck of today's Hollywood, you can be spiritually saved by renting the DVDs.

Hitchcock's films were known for many things, including a glossy, elegant style. But it was his ability to play our feelings, to sense how the audience would react, that was the spearhead of his success. And it struck me that Hitchcock had quite a bit to teach political candidates, even 28 years after his death. Some political players know these things instinctively. Most do not. Consider what Hitchcock knew, and showed in his work.

LESSON ONE – People love to be scared. We don't like to admit it, but it's clearly true. Hitchcock's career was based, simply, on scaring the audience. He reminded us of our sense of vulnerability, of what he called the "watch out" factor in life. There's a world of difference between fearmongering and understanding what people fear. It's outrageous, for example, when critics accuse President Bush of fearmongering when he discusses terrorism, for it's something Americans legitimately fear. Fear, in many respects, is good. It's the reason we don't put our hand on a hot stove.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: The candidate who understands voters' fears, and who can provide solutions, will have a strong appeal. People want their fears addressed. They don't want them ridiculed or ignored. A parent who fears that her child will be beaten up in school is outraged if her fear is shrugged off as a "socio-economic problem." Both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, although sunny characters, understood how, with restraint, to use fear. Roosevelt told America, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," but forcefully described, and addressed, the economic despair gripping the nation. Reagan spoke of "morning in America," but visceral fear of crime, and of international defeat, was always on his agenda.
Understand fear.

LESSON TWO – Elegance works. If people are so fascinated by "reality," they can walk down the street, look around at the masses, and save the price of a movie ticket. The people we like to see are those we'd like to be, those we feel are a few cuts above. Many of Hitchcock's characters had a sheen about them. They were well turned out, with style. We enjoyed their company, even if they were the bad guys. Cary Grant, in "North by Northwest," was the most elegant ad man imaginable. Doris Day, in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was, in her time, a delightful dream.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Don't fall for the myth that Americans want their president to be "just like them." They want the president to be a little bit better. Yes, warmth is needed, but it must be joined with a certain polish. (I think that's part of Obama's appeal.) Roosevelt could start his fireside chats with the words, "My friends..," but he was a patrician, with a patrician's accent. He pronounced "again" as "agane." People liked it. Harry Truman, who succeeded Roosevelt, was much more "like us," but suffered for it. He lacked his predecessor's finish and elegance. Jimmy Carter thought he could identify with us by carrying his own bags. We didn't care for the practice. We felt that a president shouldn't carry his own bags. Kennedy could get away with a great deal because he exuded class. Clinton didn't, and paid the price.

LESSON THREE – A certain distance, please. This is related to Lesson Two. Hitchcock, especially starting the 1950s, liked to use "cool blondes" in his films – Grace Kelly (later Princess Grace of Monaco), Kim Novak, the aforementioned Doris Day, Eva Marie Saint, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren. He explained that they were untouchable, and that the untouchable is fascinating.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: There must be an invisible barrier between public and presidential candidate. These little coffee klatches in New Hampshire or Iowa may have some appeal, but they pass quickly. I suspect many Americans, watching on television, think them demeaning. I once was sitting, with my wife and daughter, two rows behind Ronald and Nancy Reagan at a play in New York. (It was "Crazy for You.") Watching the former president interact with members of the audience at intermission was a pleasure. He was warm, and engaging, and yet there was a certain distance. He didn't fawn over people or slap backs. He was still "Mr. President," and he knew the style. Peggy Noonan has said of Reagan that he knew how to be president, and I certainly saw it that night. Be friendly, candidates, but know when that invisible curtain must fall.

LESSON FOUR – Get rid of problems at the start. In "Strangers on a Train," two men meet during a trip and fall into a casual conversation. Each reveals he has someone in his life he'd like to see dead. Eventually, one of them proposes an agreement – that they murder each other's enemies. No one could trace the crimes. The agreement is sealed, and the plot gets going. Now, it's quite a convenient coincidence that two men with exactly the same problem, requiring a murderous solution, should meet on a train. But Hitchcock, always the student of the audience, explained that people will accept a coincidence at the beginning of a movie, but never at the end.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Get rid of problems as soon as possible. Voters will accept an embarrassing revelation about a candidate early in a campaign, but never late. There are some well-timed political leaks coming out claiming that Senator Obama has some baggage in Chicago, a town where political baggage is carried around routinely. If so, he'd be wise to get it out now, rather than wait for a bombshell just before a vote.

LESSON FIVE – The better the villain, the better the story. That's a line Alfred Hitchcock used all the time. Drama is about conflict, and you'd better have someone worth conflicting with. He put great stress on building his villains, even if you rarely saw them. In "Rear Window" we got only a glimpse of the villain, played by Raymond Burr. But Hitchcock had built him, in our eyes, into a menacing wife killer.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Forget all this stuff about no negative campaigning. There's always negative campaigning. You must portray your opponent as someone unworthy of the office, someone to be battled. An election campaign is a story, with elements of mystery, and, often, a surprise ending. You don't have to tear down your opponent, you simply have to make clear all the things that make it noble and worthwhile to defeat him. The better the villain, the better your story.
There are more lessons from Alfred Hitchcock. I may take them up in a later post. He would have been a great political consultant, although, given what happened to some of the villains in his films, he might have carried things a bit far.

ADDENDUM: In the first paragraph I asked you to name the film in which the name "Thornhill" appears. The answer, of course, is "North by Northwest." The character is Roger Thornhill, played by Cary Grant.

[meatwadsprite]

I'm voting for this guy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PPcWWFxUJzU

[ljastangs21]

obama will win hands down

[Sir Toose]

Good, now that you are the oracle of all things, would you mind passing me the lottery numbers for this week. My family would appreciate it.

[ljastangs21]

Obama has created a great relationship with the younger voters..

[Sir Toose]

So?

The younger voters control the election? Is that what you're saying? Also, younger voters only vote Obama?

[allthatglitters]

Obama has created a great relationship with the younger voters..

Youth don't vote. It doesn't happen, and it's not going to happen. Obama has temporarily caught the well-wishes of the youth, but no amount of his hopeful rhetoric can push enough youth to the polls to make a significant change. Every election is going to be THE election in which youth come out and take responsibility as citizens, or so we are told by Rock the Vote or a special edition of Cosmo, but it never happens. Wise politicians do not rely on the youth--not that they discount them totally, but they do not see them as a reliable voting bloc (although youth are more likely to be registered democrat or independent.)

[Equilibrium]

Youth don't vote. It doesn't happen, and it's not going to happen. Obama has temporarily caught the well-wishes of the youth, but no amount of his hopeful rhetoric can push enough youth to the polls to make a significant change. Every election is going to be THE election in which youth come out and take responsibility as citizens, or so we are told by Rock the Vote or a special edition of Cosmo, but it never happens. Wise politicians do not rely on the youth--not that they discount them totally, but they do not see them as a reliable voting bloc (although youth are more likely to be registered democrat or independent.)


That is not actually true. The youth vote comprises about 25% of the total vote. That is a significant number and that is based on the last election 4 years ago. As i understand it even more are involved this election. Also, the lack of previous interest from the youth is not a reflection of an inherent disability in them but rather a flaw in the candidates. Whose to say that the proper candidate can't sway most of the youth into voting? Never say never, especially in these strange times.

[Piddzilla]

Ok, yankee doodles... What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?

[ImNotGibson]

Ok, yankee doodles... What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?
For a primary you can just cast your ballot at a voting location or through the mail, but for a caucuse you have to a go to a designated place within a district, usually somewhere like a school or a church, in which they will have different areas set up specifically for a certain candidate and people will go into a given area so as to show their support for the candidate that that area represents. If an area has too few people in it, the candidate will be eliminated for that district and the people who were in that group have to into a different area to support a more popular candidate.

Also not every state has a caucus or a primary. I don't know how they decide that.

So umm...I think I got that about right. Maybe. I'm either really close or I'm waaaaay off.

[The Gnat]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080115/capt.3285b1fa7cd14c47845ec20bd304948d.romney_2008_michigan_primary_mimo113.jpg?x=400&y=284&sig=0G436h.S352_y3v.ekNPFg--

http://www.impawards.com/1967/posters/fearless_vampire_killers.jpg

I saw the picture up on Yahoo and immediately thought he looked familiar, then I figured out where I had seen him before.

[7thson]

Yep, and there are only two things worse than a Vampire: A lawyer and a used car salesman.

http://images1.comstock.com/Imagewarehouse/CR/SITECS/NLWMCompingVersions/15508/15508-51dg.jpg

[7thson]

Ok, yankee doodles... What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?


Well a carcass is like a dead thing:
http://www.klimages.com/stock/usa/california/los_angeles/images/large/Roadkill-squirrel_9795_05100.jpg


and a primary is like a pump thingy:

http://www.gouldspumps.com/download_files/pump_fundamentals/sect_b8_fig1.gif

[mark f]

And sometimes a carcass gets stuck in a primary and if you don't get it removed quickly, you'll end up with a hanging chad, and that causes crap to overflow all over the place.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/2/1/5/2150267116e2de7b43261e07d06b4700.jpghttp://www.strangenewproducts.com/uploaded_images/skull-toilet-brush-727697.jpg

[7thson]

I had a best friend named Chad, then he went and found God. Do not get me wrong, that is great, but that left me washing windshields all alone. I felt lonely cause of Chad...that bastard.

[ImNotGibson]

Huh. I just found out I'm going to Vegas in a couple days as a volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign.

[Piddzilla]

Huh. I just found out I'm going to Vegas in a couple days as a volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign.

That's nice. "I just found out I'm a volunteer". :D

[Piddzilla]

Ok, so what do you think so far?

I have to say that I am very impressed by Barack Obama. He's political superstar material, I mean on a global scale. This is the guy who can close the gap between America and the rest of the world.

[Yoda]

As some of you already know, I'm a big fan of John McCain. Not just his personal story of heroism (which is tremendous), but the courage he's exhibited throughout his entire political career. He's stood up to the party establishment time after time, and has a remarkable track record of reaching across the aisle to forge compromises.

Most importantly, however, is that of all the candidates in the race, he has the most sterling credentials on foreign policy. He has been consistent (and consistently right) on the most important international issues. You can find, for example, a YouTube clip from 2000 in which he expresses concern about Putin, and where his administration might be headed. He supported the Iraq war, but was among the first to criticize the strategy employed and support the troop surge (and accompanying shift in strategy) which has helped to dramatically reduce violence there.

I have my problems with him, to be sure, but his personal integrity, and his repeated willingness to make independent choices, has completely won me over.

On the Democratic side, I, too, am quite impressed with Obama. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but there's no denying that he is a wonderful orator, and has more personal integrity, than some of his opponents. His steadfast refusal to play the "race card" is politically shrewd, but also the right thing to do. He's taken the high road at almost every turn, and he deserves to be commended for it.

The prospect of a McCain-Obama matchup in the general election has me very excited. I think both men would go to great lenghts to highlight their differences, but I think the campaign would be far more civilized and substantive than we've head in quite awhile.

Of course, as a conservative, the prospect of a McCain-Clinton matchup is exciting as well, but for vastly different reasons. Namely, because it could produce a double-digit margin for the former.

[adidasss]

Ok, so what do you think so far?

I have to say that I am very impressed by Barack Obama. He's political superstar material, I mean on a global scale. This is the guy who can close the gap between America and the rest of the world.
We're talking about a country that voted for Bush twice in a row, somehow I get the feeling a black man won't exactly repeat the same feat any time in the near future...:nope:

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Ok, so what do you think so far?

I have to say that I am very impressed by Barack Obama. He's political superstar material, I mean on a global scale. This is the guy who can close the gap between America and the rest of the world.


I'm not impressed by him at all. He's incredibly generic to me. Almost like a figure head. He's a great speaker, but I'm afraid that's all he is. He's great at speaking without saying anything at all.

I'd rather have him than Clinton, but at this point, I'd rather see a non-Mike Huckabee republican get it.

Mike Gravel is the only man who has a set of balls who's offering real solutions. The only reason he won't win is because he's not a celebrity politician which is what you have to be nowadays.

Damn shame.

[Yoda]

We're talking about a country that voted for Bush twice in a row, somehow I get the feeling a black man won't exactly repeat the same feat any time in the near future...:nope:
Right, because we Republicans hate black people. :rolleyes: Nevermind Colin Powell, who's had to endure countless people in the party trying to persuade him to run over the years.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

On the Democratic side, I, too, am quite impressed with Obama. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but there's no denying that he is a wonderful orator, and has more personal integrity, than some of his opponents. His steadfast refusal to play the "race card" is politically shrewd, but also the right thing to do. He's taken the high road at almost every turn, and he deserves to be commended for it.



You're right. He is shrewd. He would lose votes if he did play the race card. He's not stupid. He knows just by running, he's playing the race card - or rather other people (the media) are playing it for him. Of course you're going to have an Oprah come out and endorse a candidate that could potentially be our first black president. In this case you have Oprah supporting the black ticket instead of the female ticket.

Like I said, I haven't been that impressed with him. And I certainly don't want another CLinton.

[adidasss]

Right, because we Republicans hate black people. :rolleyes: Nevermind Colin Powell, who's had to endure countless people in the party trying to persuade him to run over the years.

Was he an elected official?

[iluv2viddyfilms]

That is not actually true. The youth vote comprises about 25% of the total vote. That is a significant number and that is based on the last election 4 years ago. As i understand it even more are involved this election. Also, the lack of previous interest from the youth is not a reflection of an inherent disability in them but rather a flaw in the candidates. Whose to say that the proper candidate can't sway most of the youth into voting? Never say never, especially in these strange times.

And if youth trends and popular opinion is going to sway the election... God help us.

Lord knows we want people who waste money on crap like Meet the Spartans and Saw IV voting for the next leader of our country.

Honestly, I'd rather they not vote if they're going to go for the "cool" and "hip" factor to spark their interest.

[Yoda]

Was he an elected official?
No, he was appointed. But he had tremendous public support.

That's quite obviously beside the point, however, as I'm still waiting for you to explain the apparent link between voting for Bush and racism. Or do you think it's okay to level staggering accusations without any reasoning (let alone evidence)?

[adidasss]

No, he was appointed. But he had tremendous public support.

That's quite obviously beside the point, however, as I'm still waiting for you to explain the apparent link between voting for Bush and racism. Or do you think it's okay to level staggering accusations without any reasoning (let alone evidence)?
I may be talking out of my ass, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of racists in your country are in fact conservatives=republicans. I'd love for you people to prove me wrong and vote for Obama, but as I said, I have a feeling that's not likely to happen. We shall see...

Oh and don't get your knickers in a twist sir, my opinion of your country (or rather the majority of its citizens) just isn't very high as of late...http://www.gay.hr/web/smilies/peace.gif If it makes you feel better, a black man will sooner become the president of the U.S. than of Croatia, which speaks how highly I think of my own compatriots...:yup:

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I may be talking out of my ass, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of racists in your country are in fact conservatives=republicans. I'd love for you people to prove me wrong and vote for Obama, but as I said, I have a feeling that's not likely to happen. We shall see...

Oh and don't get your knickers in a twist sir, my opinion of your country (or rather the majority of its citizens) just isn't very high as of late...http://www.gay.hr/web/smilies/peace.gif If it makes you feel better, a black man will sooner become the president of the U.S. than of Croatia, which speaks how highly I think of my own compatriots...:yup:


How is voting for Obama directly related to not being a racist? I don't get it. Surely being the open minded person you are, you wouldn't expect a white person to vote for a black person to prove they're not racist. How idiotic would that be?

I'd vote for Gravel, who is a white damn near 80-year old codger before Obama who is a young hip black idea-less figurehead of a candidate.

[Piddzilla]

As some of you already know, I'm a big fan of John McCain. Not just his personal story of heroism (which is tremendous), but the courage he's exhibited throughout his entire political career. He's stood up to the party establishment time after time, and has a remarkable track record of reaching across the aisle to forge compromises.

Most importantly, however, is that of all the candidates in the race, he has the most sterling credentials on foreign policy. He has been consistent (and consistently right) on the most important international issues. You can find, for example, a YouTube clip from 2000 in which he expresses concern about Putin, and where his administration might be headed. He supported the Iraq war, but was among the first to criticize the strategy employed and support the troop surge (and accompanying shift in strategy) which has helped to dramatically reduce violence there.

I have my problems with him, to be sure, but his personal integrity, and his repeated willingness to make independent choices, has completely won me over.

On the Democratic side, I, too, am quite impressed with Obama. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but there's no denying that he is a wonderful orator, and has more personal integrity, than some of his opponents. His steadfast refusal to play the "race card" is politically shrewd, but also the right thing to do. He's taken the high road at almost every turn, and he deserves to be commended for it.

The prospect of a McCain-Obama matchup in the general election has me very excited. I think both men would go to great lenghts to highlight their differences, but I think the campaign would be far more civilized and substantive than we've head in quite awhile.

Of course, as a conservative, the prospect of a McCain-Clinton matchup is exciting as well, but for vastly different reasons. Namely, because it could produce a double-digit margin for the former.

Nice post.

I guess I agree with you but in reverse. I, of course, feel more at home in the Obama camp than in the McCain camp, as I'm sure you would have guessed. But of the republican candidates McCain is probably the one I like the most. Up until just now I thought it was Rudy but his strategy so far has been surprisingly clumsy. He's just given away the ball to the other candidates. And I did think he would be a more left wing republican, or a liberal republican if you will, but I saw a speech he made the other day and he's clearly moved to the right, possibly to steal votes from the other more conservative candidates. It's ok to be all over the place as mayor of liberal NY, but when it comes to republican primaries you can't be vague about what party you represent. But McCain's kind of old, isn't he?

Obviously I haven't watched as many debates and political TV shows as you Americans but from what I've seen it appears as Obama kind of floats on top of the other candidates' somewhat aggressive style. He doesn't seem to be bothered in the same way. And I think what some of his critics view as a lack of political substance is actually a sign of his brilliance. While the other candidates are busy convincing the voters with various political arguments Obama is promoting himself as the next president just as if it was the most natural thing in the world. He's focusing on being a uniting force. "I AM the next president of the USA and you just have to look at me and listen to my voice to understand why". What people view as political inexperience I see as someone who hasn't yet been corrupted or cynical and I think it will be an advantage for him.

I think it's unfair to say that black people support Obama just because he's black. The way he manage to mobilize both young voters as well as both white and non-white voters shows that he has universal qualities that attract voters from all kinds of categories. And even if some people vote for him just because he's black I'm sure there are others who don't vote for him because of the same reason.

[Piddzilla]

I'd vote for Gravel, who is a white damn near 80-year old codger before Obama who is a young hip black idea-less figurehead of a candidate.

Because of just that or because of any other reason?

[adidasss]

How is voting for Obama directly related to not being a racist? I don't get it. Surely being the open minded person you are, you wouldn't expect a white person to vote for a black person to prove they're not racist. How idiotic would that be?

Pretty idiotic. But I never suggested that so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

What I suggested was that there are a sh!tload of racists in your country and some of the apolitical ones may even be compelled to go out and vote against Obama if he ends up running for the president. Now seeing as how the majority of your citizens voted for Bush even after the disastrous Iraq war, that leads me to believe that you're more conservatively inclined than ever...I'm not saying it's gonna be a landslide if Obama does end up running, but those votes may prove to be crucial.

Also, I'd love to see the day when the official republican candidate is a member of an ethnic minority or a woman...:\

[Sir Toose]

What I suggested was that there are a sh!tload of racists in your country


Yep.

A lot of them follow Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. A lot of them make rap records too to underscore racial differences.

By the by, you sure it's just my country? I think I'd have said 'in the world'.

[7thson]

even after the disastrous Iraq war,


Also, I'd love to see the day when the official republican candidate is a member of an ethnic minority or a woman...:\

As opposed to a war that is undisastrous of course.

How many times in the past have the Dems had a minority as the offical nominated candidate? As Yoda mentioned before Powel would have gotten my vote had he ever run.

[adidasss]

By the by, you sure it's just my country? I think I'd have said 'in the world'.
The rest of the world can't vote in the American elections so I think we'll exclude it for now...;)

As opposed to a war that is undisastrous of course.

How many times in the past have the Dems had a minority as the offical nominated candidate? As Yoda mentioned before Powel would have gotten my vote had he ever run.
"Disastrous" referred to the decision to invade a country half way across the world under false pretenses. Apparently being systematically lied to doesn't much matter to you people...:\

[7thson]

"Disastrous" referred to the decision to invade a country half way across the world under false pretenses. Apparently being systematically lied to doesn't much matter to you people...:\

Why does it matter that it is halfway across the world? Does that mean if Iraq were say - Cuba, it would be alright? I never did understand that argument. As I have stated before, this is nothing new in our government or any government, being lied to. Guess we got the copyright on that here in America.

[adidasss]

Why does it matter that it is halfway across the world? Does that mean if Iraq were say - Cuba, it would be alright? I never did understand that argument. As I have stated before, this is nothing new in our government or any government, being lied to. Guess we got the copyright on that here in America.
It matters because that means it didn't pose an immediate threat to you, just like Vietnam didn't.

I'd be pretty pissed if I were blatantly lied to and I certainly wouldn't vote for those people again...but that's just me...

[Sir Toose]

"Disastrous" referred to the decision to invade a country half way across the world under false pretenses. Apparently being systematically lied to doesn't much matter to you people...:\

Man, you really paint with a broad brush don't you? The American populous can be understood with one big swipe called 'you people'.

You didn't read all of those links I put up the last time we discussed the legality of the war in Iraq and how it was backed and by whom. If you did, you wouldn't be using the same language you used before I posted them. It's either that or your stubborn refusal to believe in the actual evidence versus your own twisted version of the truth.

Mistakes were made, without a doubt but you can't on one hand say Bush is the stupidest person on the planet and on the other say he is capable of the most secretive and well executed military coup in the history of the world with an eye toward complete global domination.

The answer is always in the middle.

[7thson]

Well I just do not think it was blatant, misleading maybe, or in my opinon misled because the information was misleading. I think lies beget lies also, but then again I guess Sadam never lied, never signed a cease fire that was broken almost immediately.

As far as the race goes though, I am undecided. I am leaning more towards McCain, but if Obama can show me something before election day and he is an option still who knows.

[Sir Toose]

I may be talking out of my ass, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of racists in your country are in fact conservatives=republicans.
I have absolutely no idea where you picked that up but it couldn't be further from the truth. What the hell are you reading/watching anyways? For someone who seeks to be fairly judged you certainly have trouble reciprocating.

I'd love for you people to prove me wrong and vote for Obama, but as I said, I have a feeling that's not likely to happen. We shall see...

So to oppose Obama philosophically regardless of his skin color and not vote for him makes me a racist in your eyes? I think that makes me the opposite of racist because I can clearly articulate WHY I would vote against him and which of his stances I disagree with whatever color his skin happens to be.

I won't be voting for him just to prove I'm not a racist which would be, according to your post, the wisest choice.

[7thson]

It matters because that means it didn't pose an immediate threat to you, just like Vietnam didn't.



Oh you mean our allies are just to be ignored?

[adidasss]

Man, you really paint with a broad brush don't you? The American populous can be understood with one big swipe called 'you people'.

You people meaning the majority. I didn't think I needed to pay so much attention to semantics so you would understand what I was saying. Although I suspect you just wanted to be a pain in the ass

Btw, suddenly, you get upset when others (seemingly) generalize, but the conclusion that one Christian depicted as a hysterical old woman means all Christians are hysterical and desperate somehow makes sense...:rolleyes:

You didn't read all of those links I put up the last time we discussed the legality of the war in Iraq and how it was backed and by whom. If you did, you wouldn't be using the same language you used before I posted them. It's either that or your stubborn refusal to believe in the actual evidence versus your own twisted version of the truth.
I did read "some" of those links and I'd rather take the opinion of the world's leading experts on international law than a few American bureaucrats, thanks. But right now, we're talking about the fact that the war was started (at least to my knowledge) because of the "suspicion" that they had WOMD. Or was it started because Saddam was a bad man who oppressed a lot of people and you just wanted to help because you're just a bunch of selfless bleeding hearts? And yes, by "you" I mean every single American.:rolleyes:

Mistakes were made, without a doubt but you can't on one hand say Bush is the stupidest person on the planet and on the other say he is capable of the most secretive and well executed military coup in the history of the world with an eye toward complete global domination.
Hyperbole FTW. Gimme a break man, it's not exactly secretive or particularly clever if the entire world knows what's going on...:\

[Yoda]

Guys, this is a good discussion, and I don't want to stifle it. But we have many other threads on Iraq and such, so I think it's best to keep these sorts of post confined to those threads, especially since the 2008 election is a worthy topic on its own and shouldn't be crowded out.

If you guys want to continue this, I'll gladly move the posts in question to an existing thread (Equilibrium's "war criminal" thread, perhaps?) or to a new one. Do you guys have any preference?

[adidasss]

I have absolutely no idea where you picked that up but it couldn't be further from the truth. What the hell are you reading/watching anyways? For someone who seeks to be fairly judged you certainly have trouble reciprocating.
Really? So to you, it would be logical to conclude that on the whole, racists would be more likely to be liberals and vote for Democrats? Astounding!

So to oppose Obama philosophically regardless of his skin color and not vote for him makes me a racist in your eyes? I think that makes me the opposite of racist because I can clearly articulate WHY I would vote against him and which of his stances I disagree with whatever color his skin happens to be.

I won't be voting for him just to prove I'm not a racist which would be, according to your post, the wisest choice.


Pretty idiotic. But I never suggested that so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

What I suggested was that there are a sh!tload of racists in your country and some of the apolitical ones may even be compelled to go out and vote against Obama if he ends up running for the president. Now seeing as how the majority of your citizens voted for Bush even after the disastrous Iraq war, that leads me to believe that you're more conservatively inclined than ever...I'm not saying it's gonna be a landslide if Obama does end up running, but those votes may prove to be crucial.

Also, I'd love to see the day when the official republican candidate is a member of an ethnic minority or a woman...:\
Having trouble reading? I NEVER said anything of the sort so PLEASE, for the love of God, stop putting words in my mouth.

[7thson]

Guys, this is a good discussion, and I don't want to stifle it. But we have many other threads on Iraq and such, so I think it's best to keep these sorts of post confined to those threads, especially since the 2008 election is a worthy topic on its own and shouldn't be crowded out.

If you guys want to continue this, I'll gladly move the posts in question to an existing thread (Equilibrium's "war criminal" thread, perhaps?) or to a new one. Do you guys have any preference?

Any thread is fine, or maybe even a new one, just let me know where.:)

[Sir Toose]

Crap, I screwed up and hit edit instead of Quote. I'll try to fix it. Sorry Adi!

[Sir Toose]

You people meaning the majority. I didn't think I needed to pay so much attention to semantics so you would understand what I was saying. Although I suspect you just wanted to be a pain in the ass..
You didn't, in my opinion, accurately represent the whole which is why I took issue with it.


Btw, suddenly, you get upset when others (seemingly) generalize, but the conclusion that one Christian depicted as a hysterical old woman means all Christians are hysterical and desperate somehow makes sense...

Are you talking about the movie discussion from weeks ago? That's relevant to this discussion? I said in The Man From Earth I believe that the christian professor was meant to be representative of a common thought. I still believe she was meant to represent the 'unthinking' religious population with a particular focus on Christianity but none of that is relevant here as that was a film discussion.

I did read "some" of those links and I'd rather take the opinion of the world's leading experts on international law than a few American bureaucrats, thanks. But right now, we're talking about the fact that the war was started (at least to my knowledge) because of the "suspicion" that they had WOMD. Or was it started because Saddam was a bad man who oppressed a lot of people and you just wanted to help because you're just a bunch of selfless bleeding hearts? And yes, by "you" I mean every single American.

It was beyond suspicion. Iraq had a nuclear program, they had a method of delivery purchased from the Russians and they were seeking a way to enrich uranium (they had almost two tons of it, it was removed in 2004). It's all in the documentation I linked which is, by the way, the UN resolution and not produced by American bureaucrats. Do you have any links from credible sources to back up your claims, btw, I'd like to read them.

Guys, this is a good discussion, and I don't want to stifle it. But we have many other threads on Iraq and such, so I think it's best to keep these sorts of post confined to those threads, especially since the 2008 election is a worthy topic on its own and shouldn't be crowded out.
Something tells me I could talk and talk and back it up all day with credible sources (as I've done in the past two arguments) and it wouldn't get anywhere. I'm tired of banging my head on this particular wall so I'll table further discussion from my end.

[Sir Toose]

Really? So to you, it would be logical to conclude that on the whole, racists would be more likely to be liberals and vote for Democrats? Astounding!

No, to me it would be logical to NOT make broad sweeping statements like suggesting that most racists in America are republicans (and most republicans are racists) and judge everyone on an individual basis.

Having trouble reading? I NEVER said anything of the sort so PLEASE, for the love of God, stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't believe I am. In response to Yoda asking you to link racism to voting for Bush you said:

I may be talking out of my ass, but I was under the impression that the vast majority of racists in your country are in fact conservatives=republicans. I'd love for you people to prove me wrong and vote for Obama, but as I said, I have a feeling that's not likely to happen. We shall see...

That statement says to me that a vote in for Obama would alleviate your suspicions that conservative americans are racist. Which also says the opposite, if Obama were not voted in it would support your belief that conservative americans are racist.

You could, of course, just come right out say what you believe which would nullify all of this interpretation.

[adidasss]

It was beyond suspicion. Iraq had a nuclear program, they had a method of delivery purchased from the Russians and they were seeking a way to enrich uranium (they had almost two tons of it, it was removed in 2004). It's all in the documentation I linked which is, by the way, the UN resolution and not produced by American bureaucrats. Do you have any links from credible sources to back up your claims, btw, I'd like to read them. About the war in Iraq, yeah, I provided them in the appropriate thread.

Something tells me I could talk and talk and back it up all day with credible sources (as I've done in the past two arguments) and it wouldn't get anywhere. I'm tired of banging my head on this particular wall so I'll table further discussion from my end.Yeah me too, but I've got a bit of extra time and nothing else to do at the moment so here we are, repeating the same ***** over and over again...

most racists in America are republicans (and most republicans are racists) Orly? So, since most homosexuals are democrats, most democrats are gay? Sweeeeet!

[Sir Toose]

About the war in Iraq, yeah, I provided them in the appropriate thread.
Yeah me too, but I've got a bit of extra time and nothing else to do at the moment so here we are, repeating the same ***** over and over again...

Why do we keep doing this? :D

You're fun to argue with, I suppose and that's a compliment.

Orly? So, since most homosexuals are democrats, most democrats are gay? Sweeeeet!
And you took issue with me saying that woman in the film was a representative reactionary?! :rotfl:

[adidasss]

Why do we keep doing this? :D


Because I'm right and I'm just trying to show you the light but you stubbornly refuse to see things my way?:D

And you took issue with me saying that woman in the film was a representative reactionary?! :rotfl: I think you missed the sarcasm...;) I never said most Republicans are racists, that was your flawed deduction...:yup:

[Sir Toose]

Because I'm right and I'm just trying to show you the light but you stubbornly refuse to see things my way?:D
pot, meet kettle. :D

I think you missed the sarcasm...;) I never said most Republicans are racists, that was your flawed deduction...:yup:

I didn't miss it, I just chose to make light of it because that's how you came across when you coupled 'sh!tloads of racists' with 'majority of racists are conservative=repubs' but whatever. That was your flawed deduction cause I'm sure you don't have documentation to support that view.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Because of just that or because of any other reason?

I think he uses a lot of common sense. I've watched a lot of his clips on youtube where he's spoke and he seems to be honest. I like his stance on gay marriage, ending the Iraq War. I'm not so sure about health care, but he'll support vouchers at least, so hopefully it won't be a situation where you can only go to certain doctors.

Also because of his history of the philabuster and pushes in the Civil Rights movement.

[Thursday Next]

At the risk of an adidasss type generalisation....it always amazes me how 'you people' (Americans) actually care about the elections. In the UK, we know that people have dies for our rights to vote and stuff, and most of us do vote, but we don't actually like the candidates in the way that you like yours. Politicians are tolerated with a weary cynicism by the media and the public alike. It's always a case of 'I voted for him because he wasn't quite as bad as the other lot'. We don't have rallys. A few fundraisers in village halls, perhaps, but that's about it. In many ways I admire the lack of cynicism. I do think if people didn't dislike politicians so much, they might get better ones. But on the other side of the coin the a little cynicism wouldn't go amiss with some of your potential candidates...

Still, every time anyone complains about UK or US political systems and politicians, I just feel thankful not to live in Kenya.

[Piddzilla]

At the risk of an adidasss type generalisation....it always amazes me how 'you people' (Americans) actually care about the elections. In the UK, we know that people have dies for our rights to vote and stuff, and most of us do vote, but we don't actually like the candidates in the way that you like yours. Politicians are tolerated with a weary cynicism by the media and the public alike. It's always a case of 'I voted for him because he wasn't quite as bad as the other lot'. We don't have rallys. A few fundraisers in village halls, perhaps, but that's about it. In many ways I admire the lack of cynicism. I do think if people didn't dislike politicians so much, they might get better ones. But on the other side of the coin the a little cynicism wouldn't go amiss with some of your potential candidates...

Still, every time anyone complains about UK or US political systems and politicians, I just feel thankful not to live in Kenya.

An American presidential election is totally focused on the individual candidates while, for instance, a Swedish election for the parliament is much more focused on party politics - even if the party leaders make a lot of difference. But I think while in USA it's not uncommon to vote for a likeable candidate even if you don't agree with everything he or she is saying, in Sweden it's not uncommon to vote for a political party even if you dislike the potential Prime Minister. Just speculating, of course, but I think I might have a point here.

We don't have presidents - we have a king who's someone we can't elect (luckily for him).

[Swedish Chef]

We don't have presidents - we have a king who's someone we can't elect (luckily for him).

The United States desperately needs a royal family, if only to compensate for the unintentional comedy we'll no longer get with Bush/Cheney out of the White House. Obviously it would be a completely powerless and meaningless title, but I think we need something like that. We'd still have the president and all that jazz, but we'd also get a whole smorgasbord of novelty Dukes and Princesses and whatnot. I say we elect the Kennedys/Shrivers/Schwarzeneggers to be our official royal family and give Arnie a throne and maybe even a crown because he deserves it, dammit.

[adidasss]

Ok, I think that qualifies as one of the silliest bumps in movieforums history. :|

[honeykid]

Are you kidding?!? That last sentence alone makes that post worthwhile. lol