Politics 2008

[Mercutio]

Anyone have any strong opinions on the current crop of Presidential candidates?

I'm liking Obama, even though he's not a big fan of NASA.
I don't know anyone who is willing to say they would vote for Hillary.
Edwards is... present. I suspect he's going to have a cabinet position from one of the other two because he's not even on the radar of anything else, but he still gets a decent hunk of votes in every primary.

I'm sure you republican/libertarian-types have your own opinions, but for me I see the far right party splitting into three distinct subcategories, each with their own candidate.

The Fatcats - The guys who basically want tax breaks for everything and think trickle-down economics work clearly seem to be in favor of Romney, but he's freakish holy underwear-wearing cult membership (and perhaps intellectual flexibility, which republicans like to call "flip-flopping") are a huge turn off to the other two groups.

The Frightened - The guys who are scared of terrorists and like to make <wink> jokes about invading new and different Arab nations. These guys have McCain, whom the other two groups don't like because he freely admits he doesn't know jack about economics and because he was something other than unfailingly obsequious to the Fundies. They also have Guiliani for another few days, whose brain dead response to every single thing ever is "9/11" and whom the Fundies think is the antichrist for his liberal social ideals, like the one where he thinks gay people should be allowed to exist.

The Fundies - These are the people who think Jesus is coming any day now and therefore it's their duty to inflict their beliefs on every American with at least a pulse. These guys are terrified of anything that might resemble social progress and want to see the constitution rewritten to reflect the will of God, but fortunately the other two parts of the Republican party have pretty much decided that it's not worth dealing with them just to get some reliable voter turnout. They've already said they're basically going to take their ball and go home if their guy, Huckabee, doesn't get the Republican nomination. Huckabee, of course, is too much a populist for the Fatcat-types.

I can really see a possible split of the Republicans into two or three distinct parties. The ideologies each seem to have an incompatible mindset from the others, except as personified in the ignorant son of a bitch we have in office right now.

I'm really surprised by how well debates have been covered, and how many there have been. I have really hated the format of most of the debates, but I can't ever remember there being this many.

I'm actually kind of hoping we get to see some contested party conventions this summer.

 

[ddrueding]

I would prefer Obama to Hillary, but I don't think that is going to happen, and I don't really "like" either; they are just better than what we have now. Might we see Obama as VP?

I think you have a pretty good analysis of the conservative side, and I don't fit in anywhere. What happened to old-school conservatism? Small govornment? Low taxes? No-one is going there at all.

 

[Will Rickards]

I think we need more taxes to get that government debt down. I'm totally against this tax relief/economic stimulus bill going through congress. And the bailout of any mortgage suckers.

Why not Hillary? I'll vote for the democratic candidate probably whoever it ends up being. Hillary has the white house experience. And it is about time a woman tried to run the country. I don't think Obama has the experience needed to run the country.

I should mention that I normally do not follow politics so I don't really know where they stand on the issues. As such much of my views are basically arm chair politics based (and influenced by you guys). But I still vote either way. Use your rights or lose them, that is what I like to say.

 

[ddrueding]

I agree that we need to get the debt eliminated, but I'm sure I could find a way to do it without raising taxes. Some people might not like me, but the economy would be doing a hell of a lot better.

Hillary is fine. She's old-school Washington, and has been taking money from the usual suspects. Nothing much will change with her in charge. She represents the status-quo.

 

[Mercutio]

Fundamentally, there's almost no difference between Edwards, Clinton and Obama. The question really is down to voting for a white chick, a black guy with a funny name and the usual guy in a blue suit.

But the way I see it is this: Hillary is not Bill. She's got a lot of skeletons in her closet, a pretty weak legislative record, she rubs a lot of people the wrong way for whatever reason and at this point I can also add that her emotional outburst - crying - after the Iowa caucus may have given her the boost she needed to win New Hampshire... and she's using Bill to knock down Obama while she stays "above the fray." She has some pretty nasty authoritarian streaks and she's the establishment candidate for the high-ups in the party (and that's a group with a pretty awful record at picking winners...). Hillary as the chosen candidate would rile up the Republicans like nothing else on Earth. They've been campaigning against her for more than 15 years, and I can only think at this point that letting her run for President would be the worst mistake the Dems could possibly make this year.

Obama's a black guy with a funny name, and a lot of Dems are seeing that as a weakness, either because they don't think the hicks in flyover states will vote for a black guy with a funny name or because they think it's Hillary's turn. Obama's never been in a serious political contest in his life - odd things happen to people who run against him (seriously: the chick who played 7 of 9 derailed his opponent for senate's campaign in 2004). On the other hand, he's spent about the same amount of time as Hillary being a legislator (he was also a state senator in Illinois), and if you've heard him talk... the guy has MASSIVE amounts of Charisma. The only candidate close to him in that respect is Huckabee. He stumbles a bit in debate. Hillary and Edwards both have more experience with rhetoric, but he seems to have his policy stuff down just as well.

The funny thing is, that Hillary and Obama's campaigns are sponsored almost 100% by the same businesses, organizations and lobbyists. The same moneyed interests have control of their (metaphorical if not literal) balls.

That's one of the things that makes Edwards interesting. He's self-financing. Again, he's largely in the same boat with the other two on the big issues, but with a few nods off the beaten path. Edwards is very much not a fan of big business, for example, and he has a background as a crusading attorney. His race and gender is both and up side and a down side in this particular campaign, but... Edwards comes off as smarmy, unctuous, and basically an empty suit. The man comes off like a lawyer, and that just does not play very well with, well, anyone. Also, in 2004 he added nothing to Kerry's campaign. Their ticket didn't win a single southern state. It might be said that 2008 is different, but in my mind the people have already had a referendum on the appeal of John Edwards. I suspect he'll be responsible for crowning the victor in the primary race but for right now his ego is keeping him in a race he just isn't going to win.

I'm really very far to the left of any of the Dem candidates. I wish Kunicich had made more of a mark. His wife is hot as hell and his politics are a lot closer to mine.

 

[Gilbo]

The irony is that, from a Canadian perspective, the Republican's are as far from Conservative as you can get; I'm very confused about how any right-thinking conservative could vote for them.

Run up the deficit, spend money left, right & centre, and tell everyone how you're supposed to live your life. It's the exact opposite of how Conservatives are supposed to behave. You can't let people prosper and live their lives as free men if you're funneling all their money into the military, airport security checkpoints, and investigating every photographer who likes to photograph monuments.

 

[jtr1962]

I wish Kunicich had made more of a mark. His wife is hot as hell and his politics are a lot closer to mine.

Somehow I think the fact that he's shorter than his wife might have something to do with that:

I know it's a superficial reason, but Americans tend to vote or not vote for people based on superficial reasons.

 

[Mercutio]

I think we need more taxes to get that government debt down. I'm totally against this tax relief/economic stimulus bill going through congress. And the bailout of any mortgage suckers.

The galling thing about the tax rebate thing is that it's not a rebate. We're going to be borrowing the money to do it (having already spent this year's tax revenues) and therefore we'll be paying interest on it until the end of time.

Taxes realistically do need to go up. There is no way to avoid that. None. We owe the rest of the world $9.5 trillion dollars right now and there is no way we can pay it all back. Too bad no politician who says that out loud can be considered electable.

jtr, Elizabeth Kucinich is a redheaded goddess whose effulgent beauty alone gives me hope in my blackest hour for the glorious worker's paradise of a Kucinich presidency.

 

[jtr1962]

Getting back to the main topic, I'm honestly not real passionate about any of these candidates. I like Huckabee's sales tax proposal, but his appeal to the fundamentalist wing means I probably disagree with him on just about everything else. McCain and Guiliani are too obsessed with terrorism to the exclusion of domestic issues. Neither one of them seems a big supporter of public transit, either. McCain has consistently voted against Amtrak funding, for example. Romney is trickle-down politics, and we all saw how well that worked.

On the other side, as Merc said there's not much difference on the main issues. All three of the front runners are too eager to continue to run up the deficit spending money we just don't have on big government programs. Of the three, the Hildabeast has the biggest problems in the public relations department. Her domineering, often abrasive personality is a downside. The shady deals she was involved in when Bill was in charge are another. Her husband can be either an asset or a huge liability, depending upon how you look at it. Obama is definitely charismatic. Only problem is when I listen to him speak, I can't help but think it's the 60's all over again. I feel like saying, "Hey Barack, we tried this already and all it got us was the inner city slums of the 70s, three generations living on a government check, and a major crime wave". Edwards is just booooring. I can picture him making a speech before Congress, with the snoring drowning out his voice by the end.

We need a third party candidate who will do the following:

1) Replace the income tax with a VAT tax. Many economists have said this will grow the economy by leaps and bounds, easily enabling us to pay off the national debt. Once the debt is paid, put laws in place so we can never, ever borrow money again.

2) Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. The electrical grid especially is in need of repair. So are many of our railways.

3) Develop alternative energy sources and actually put them in daily use. It's 2008. We shouldn't be using oil at all for anything.

4) Rebuild the once great interconnected railroad, interurban, and trolley system so as to reduce auto dependence, and eliminate the need for the expensive to maintain Interstate Highway system. Build modern high-speed rail to eliminate the need for domestic air travel. Say what you will about rail, but the fact is trains use 1/10 the energy and 1/5 the land of trucks or cars to do the same thing. In 200 years we just haven't invented anything better.

5) Stop being the policeman of the world. It's not our place to tell other countries what to do.

6) Focus on math, science, and engineering education. As more manufacturing and research is made to return to the USA there will be a need for people educated in these fields. Make our big cities once again the forefront as places where these highly educated people can live and work.

7) Begin the commercialization of space, and start manned space travel again. The dividends will be enormous. It will provide employment for the best and brightest. Go to Mars by 2020, start a lunar base by 2015, make manned exploration of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto a goal by the 2030s. Basically repeat the crash schedule which got us to the moon in 1969, but continue it forever. Try to get other countries involved if possible to split the costs. If not go it alone.

Basically, we need a candidate who will inspire the younger generation to a future worth looking forward to, not a mundane job in Walmart and doing things the same old way for the next century. None of these candidates do that for me.

P.S. No, I'm not interested in running. I frankly don't have the energy to be President, nor would the job interest me much as I'm a scientific/engineering type. And I would hate living in Washington.

 

[udaman]

I'm really very far to the left of any of the Dem candidates. I wish Kunicich had made more of a mark. His wife is hot as hell and his politics are a lot closer to mine.

Nah, Merc you're not even close to being as far to the left as you think you are, Kerry and supposedly liberal Dems.

On the other hand, Kuniicichcichc (how do you pronounce his name?) Brit wife is hardly "hot as hell" if you compare (well alright, she might not be as jiggly as Merc's Roger Corman B-movie idol starlets) Italian vixen Carla Bruni ...certainly beats them all.

Or, when the mood took her, cover her small, pert breasts with an acoustic guitar.
Displaying a talent that would later see her becoming France's favourite folky chanteuse, I remember she strummed away and sang a few bars of, first, Far Away Eyes and, then, Wild Horses.
Both Rolling Stones songs, of course. Both musical interludes meant as naughty, provocative gestures, proving she was all too aware that the rumour mill was rife with her alleged affair with Mick Jagger.
During the interview that followed the kitchen concert, Carla would deny the allegations: "100 per cent. No, 200 per cent."
"I have always loved men," she confessed as we chatted. And many have loved her, too, I remarked.
"I am uncomplicated, a girl without problems," she fibbed. "I think men like that."

Long-limbed, feline, with cheesecutter cheekbones and a voice so gravelly it seemed to pebbledash every utterance with dreamy, sexual overtones, she mesmerised me with her company.
She was beautiful and utterly beguiling, but also, I could tell, what we men like to call a handful.
Women, on the other hand, might have had a different word for her. Especially the married ones.
Having already dated Donald Trump, Eric Clapton, and actors Kevin Costner and Vincent Perez, she had already shown signs of a taste for powerful men by walking out with former French prime minister Laurent Fabius. (He was a Socialist, by the way; Sarkozy is a Republican.)

 

[Fushigi]

udaman, please put "NSFW" around links to pages with nudity.

 

[Stereodude]

1) Replace the income tax with a VAT tax. Many economists have said this will grow the economy by leaps and bounds, easily enabling us to pay off the national debt. Once the debt is paid, put laws in place so we can never, ever borrow money again.

I'd support this only if they repeal the 16th Amendment. Otherwise we will end up with a VAT and an income tax like all the other countries that have tried it.

 

[jtr1962]

I'd support this only if they repeal the 16th Amendment. Otherwise we will end up with a VAT and an income tax like all the other countries that have tried it.

Of course that's the only way I'd support it as well. I've learned that you never, ever give politicians a new source of revenue unless you kill an old source first. Once they have it, they're reluctant to let it go.

 

[jtr1962]

I just read this about Hitlary. Disgusting. This is just what the already squeezed middle class needs now-another tax to pay for universal health care. The minute the government sends me a letter saying I have to be insured I'm looking for someplace else to live. Mandatory SS and Medicare is bad enough. This is the proverbial straw that will break the camel's back. Now if they want to cover me for free then I'm OK with that, but I'm not paying a dime of my own money towards something I neither want nor need. The way I feel about doctors I probably still wouldn't go for checkups even if it was totally free.

What the medical establishment really needs right now is a major decrease in income, not an increase via universal health care. That's the only way you'll encourage hospitals to operate efficiently, decrease costs, and get the lawyers off doctor's backs. Other countries provide superior health care for a fraction per capita that the US does.

 

[Handruin]

It's now required in Mass to have health care insurance or they fine you or they take away your driver's license. I don't agree with it at all.

 

[mubs]

Are you serious? What if you can't afford it? Do they "encourage" you to move to another state?

It's scary how Orwellian the U.S. is becoming.

 

[jtr1962]

From what I understand they'll pay for all or part of it if they determine that you can't afford it. That's they really scary part-they'll look at your income and assets, and decide, not you. For someone like me with <$10,000 income but a decent amount of assets, they would likely tell me to pay all of it each year until I spent down my assets to $2000 or $1000 or some other ridiculously low number, and then start giving me help. It wouldn't matter to them that I've saved the money for emergencies and/or my eventual retirement. BTW, health insurance for a single person in my neck of the woods is something like $10K a year. No way I could afford it, nor is it justified. I highly doubt I'll spend one tenth of what I would be paying on insurance for health care before I die, so for me it would be cheaper on average to just pay out of pocket. Chances are I could live past 100 and never see the inside of a hospital just doing a few simple things like exercise and decent diet. The real, unsaid goal here is to get healthy people requiring little or no medical care to put money into a system to pay for all the unhealthy people currently being treated for free. To me that's the height of unfairness. So I have to pay for people who smoke 2 packs a day, or eat 6 Big Macs?

 

[e_dawg]

Anybody like the PPO health care providers in the US, since universal health care isn't exactly the answer either, despite Michael Moore's musings on the subject.

Despite the universal health care stuff, I think Hillary could be the best president out of all of them. The Clintons seem to have been the best president the US has had in the last couple decades.

 

[Will Rickards]

Having googled a bit more on obama, clearly I'm picking him over Hillary.
I'm filling out the paperwork right now to ensure I can vote on the democratic party in the primary. From what I understand Pennsylvania has a closed primary where you can only vote for what you are registered for, if you are registered independent they won't even let you vote in the primary.

 

[ddrueding]

Back when I considered myself a Democrat, I registered Republican so I could have a say in their primaries. I figured that steering the potential alternative was more useful than choosing between a group of people I mostly agreed with.

Now I label myself a pessimist and don't vote at all.

 

[Fushigi]

Partisan primaries don't make any sense to me. Assuming you are honest (unlike dd ) you are essentially declaring your party to all those around you when you ask for your ballot. Elections in the US are supposed to be private and this essentially violates that. You could say that there are still multiple candidates for President within a given party, but that's not the only position up for election (not to mention it won't always be the case). Our Democrat US Senator, Dick Durbin, candidate is unopposed within his party.

My county has 4 ballots - Republican, Democrat, Green Party, and "Non-Partisan". Non-Partisan just includes the issues - referendums - up for vote & no candidates. I guess Independent candidates are SOL. As there were no referendums for my district I stayed home.

 

[Tannin]

Just quietly, the US electoral system strikes me as utterly bizarre. Probably the best thing I can think of to say about it is that it's better than the system they use in Ruanda.

Democracy in the USA is like the dancing bear: the astonishing thing isn't that it dances so well (for it dances horribly badly) but that it dances at all.

Nevertheless, it isn't the really weird stuff like primaries and voter registration that freaks me out, it is the astonishing fact that a so-called "modern democracy" still uses first-past-the-post voting. I just don't understand why people put up with that. It's not just unfair and anti-democratic, it's ridiculously anti-democratic; unfair on a blood-in-the-streets level. Why don't people do something about it?

Beats me.

 

[Tea]

Tannin, did it ever occur to you that the crazy all-or-nothing first-past-the-post voting system they use in the States and the marked propensity that nation has for excesses of public mood and public policy may be linked?

 

[Tannin]

Huh? Have you been munching smart pills again, Tea?

Sorry, that was uncalled for. I'll start again.

No, it hadn't occurred to me, Tea. Why do you ask?

 

[Tea]

Well, it would seem to stand to reason that where you have a political system which is deliberately designed to disenfranchise minorities and moderates, and see to it that only two points of view out of the entire political constelation are represented, would naturally tend to produce immoderate, ill-thought-out policies not tempered by the normal process of review and reconsideration.

 

[Tannin]

Hmmm ... OK. But, on the other hand, the US does take the idea of seperation of powers fairly seriously - more seriously than (for example) the Australians or the English do. I don't quite know how they manage to achieve it, given their hopless voting system, but their legislative bodies (House and Senate) seem to operate more independantly of their executive leaders than the equivalent houses in the UK or Australia do, and also seem to represent a surprisingly wide diversity of opinion, often on cross-party lines.

And if your theory is correct then the UK, which also suffers from first-past-the-post voting, should be equally as much of a rouge bull on the world stage as is the USA. Wheras, in reality, the UK is on the whole remarkably balanced and moderate.

 

[Tea]

Hmmm .... Tony Ben? Margaret Thatcher?

 

[Tannin]

Tony Ben? Margaret Thatcher?

Good point.

 

[Howell]

When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins

Science shows that when we are deciding which candidate to support, anxiety, enthusiasm and whom we identify with count more than reason or logic.

 

[Howell]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107601

 

[jtr1962]

Romney dropped out today so it looks like McCain will be the Republican nominee. McCain/Clinton or McCain/Obama this November. My guess is if Obama runs he wins. If Hillary runs McCain wins.

 

[ddrueding]

My general interest is now back to low. I'm not particularly interested or afraid of any of these options.

 

[Stereodude]

Romney dropped out today so it looks like McCain will be the Republican nominee. McCain/Clinton or McCain/Obama this November. My guess is if Obama runs he wins. If Hillary runs McCain wins.

It doesn't matter who wins. All three are liberals who support amnesty for illegals, raising your taxes, crazy global warming legislation, etc, etc, etc.

 

[sechs]

It doesn't matter who wins. All three are liberals who support amnesty for illegals, raising your taxes, crazy global warming legislation, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah. It's a lot better to have a conservative who supports amnesty for illegals through a "guest worker" program, spends without raising taxes, and doesn't believe in global warming, let alone doing something about it, etc., etc., etc.

 

[RWIndiana]

Yeah. It's a lot better to have a conservative who supports amnesty for illegals through a "guest worker" program, spends without raising taxes, and doesn't believe in global warming, let alone doing something about it, etc., etc., etc.

Global warming is a theory and most things we try to do about it will most likely do much more harm than good (aside from simply responsibly reducing pollution). How about those who believe in it lead by example? I don't see John Edwards making any sacrifices. OTOH, George Bush's home is supposedly one of the most "green" around.

I agree with Gilbo about conservatives. Too bad he didn't get more publicity. Too bad Ron Paul has no chance of winning, even if he is a dangerous fanatic. Though I don't see that he's more dangerous than the rest. We're just used to them.

It appears that whoever wins will be for bigger, more socialist, nanny-state government. Will every aspect of our lives eventually be controlled? I'm sure Microsoft and friends will find some way to buy the government yet.

I would apologize for my disjointed post, but I hate when people do that.

 

[Stereodude]

Yeah. It's a lot better to have a conservative who supports amnesty for illegals through a "guest worker" program, spends without raising taxes, and doesn't believe in global warming, let alone doing something about it, etc., etc., etc.

W is a Republican who supports some conservative ideas, but he's certainly no conservative movement leader.

 

[Striker]

I'm sure Microsoft and friends will find some way to buy the government yet.

You mean businesses don't already own the govt.?

 

[sechs]

Whatever happened to conservatives who conserve? You know, the guys who built the national park system?

 

[ddrueding]

I'm right here, and I feel lonely.

 

[sechs]

I thought that you were a libertarian?