Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who do you want (realistically) in 2008 for prez?

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whoever runs for President should at least have "balls."

Our leaders have lacked courage ever since the time Kennedy stood up to Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JFK, for all his flaws, at least had some semblance of leadership qualities.

Since his assassination, the presidency has gone sharply downhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever runs for President should at least have "balls."

Our leaders have lacked courage ever since the time Kennedy stood up to Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JFK, for all his flaws, at least had some semblance of leadership qualities.

Since his assassination, the presidency has gone sharply downhill.

Well, Condi doesn't have physical balls, but she has them figuratively. I disagree though...I think Reagan had courage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the "(realistically)" part of your question first, here is what the "betting market" says:

1) Democrats: Hillary is "odds favorite" nominee by a long shot (1:2 odds)

2) Republicans: No real favorites. Right now, McCain & Frist are being given less than 1:5 odds with Guliani, Jeb Bush and George Allen being given even less. I read this as saying that none of these will be the nominee; that somone else will be pushed forward when the time is right.

I do not know who Allen is and I really don't know much about Jeb Bush, but the other Republicans on that list turn my stomach. If one of them is offered up, I will not vote, or I might vote for Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know who Allen is and I really don't know much about Jeb Bush, but the other Republicans on that list turn my stomach. If one of them is offered up, I will not vote, or I might vote for Hillary.

I wouldn't be surpirsed if Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado (Rep.) runs for president in '08. As far as politicians go, he's not bad. He comes on a local radio show once a month and takes direct questions from callers and he answers them honestly and directly! A rare trait in our modern political world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condi Is Either a Liar or Just Plain Stupid

Condi Rice, Meet the Press, NBC (June 8, 2003): “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a

forgery.”

Condi Rice Face the Nation, CBS (July 11, 2003): “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.”

Both statements are completely false. The CIA had repeatedly communicated its objections about the enriched uranium claim to White House officials, including Ms. Rice. The CIA sent two memos to the National Security Council (one of which was addressed to Ms. Rice personally) warning against including the claim in a speech by the President. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet also “argued personally” to Ms. Rice’s deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, “that the allegation should not be used” by the President.

Giuliani, Eater of the Rich

Years before Martha Stewart was jailed, U.S. Attorney Rudolf Giuliani was handcuffing and hauling traders off the floor of the New York Stock Exchange for the "crime" of “insider trading” and staging a show trial against Leona Helmsley for not paying enough income tax. The same Giuliani who now praises President Bush voted for McGovern in 1972, ran as a Liberal for Mayor of New York City in 1989, 1993, and 1997, endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor in 1994. Look “opportunist” up in the dictionary and you’ll likely find a picture of Rudy.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the "(realistically)" part of your question first, here is what the "betting market" says:

1) Democrats: Hillary is "odds favorite" nominee by a long shot (1:2 odds)

2) Republicans: No real favorites. Right now, McCain & Frist are being given less than 1:5 odds with Guliani, Jeb Bush and George Allen being given even less. I read this as saying that none of these will be the nominee; that somone else will be pushed forward when the time is right.

I do not know who Allen is and I really don't know much about Jeb Bush, but the other Republicans on that list turn my stomach. If one of them is offered up, I will not vote, or I might vote for Hillary.

Jeb Bush has definitively stated that he will not run. If the election were McCain vs. Hillary, I might be tempted to move to Australia. I don't know much about Frist. If Giulini ran, I would definitely vote for him. I'm still hoping Condi comes to terms with the fact that we need a president with some balls, and decides to run. I don't know about her economic or social beliefs, but I think that the most important issue right now is national security, and she won't be one to pussy-foot around in the middle of a war like Bush has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still hoping Condi comes to terms with the fact that we need a president with some balls, and decides to run.  I don't know about her economic or social beliefs, but I think that the most important issue right now is national security, and she won't be one to pussy-foot around in the middle of a war like Bush has done.

What is the basis for this statement? Has Rice staked out a position separate from the President? Precisely where do Bush and Rice differ on defense/foreign policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Condi doesn't have physical balls, but she has them figuratively.  I disagree though...I think Reagan had courage.

Reagan had the courage of an ox.

His mishandling of Iran-contra is key to his bad foreign policy.

Also, his reaction to the terrorism of Flight 103 shows him not to have much courage beyond his faith-based right-wing dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan had the courage of an ox.

His mishandling of Iran-contra is key to his bad foreign policy.

Also, his reaction to the terrorism of Flight 103 shows him not to have much courage beyond his faith-based right-wing dogma.

Then you might say Reagan had the courage of a faith-based, right-wing ox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would vote for Russ Feingold, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin. I think he may just run.

From http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts.

Voted YES on national education standards.

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy.

Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.

Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore, US & Chile

Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world.

Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on continuing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions.

Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage.

Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt.

Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees.

Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts.

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.

Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut.

Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.

Rated 17% by National Taxpayers Union, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever runs for President should at least have "balls."

Our leaders have lacked courage ever since the time Kennedy stood up to Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JFK, for all his flaws, at least had some semblance of leadership qualities.

Since his assassination, the presidency has gone sharply downhill.

I think you need to read some objective histories of Kennedy (perhaps Reeves' A Question of Character), the presidency had been a shambles long before him and he added to it a bit. His ability to get out of the Cuban Missile Crisis (which has been greatly distorted by efforts like his corrupt brother's Thirteen Days and the subsequent movie) had more to do with luck, and the fact that the Soviets weren't crazy nutjobs willing to get themselves killed over Cuba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to read some objective histories of Kennedy (perhaps Reeves' A Question of Character), the presidency had been a shambles long before him and he added to it a bit. His ability to get out of the Cuban Missile Crisis (which has been greatly distorted by efforts like his corrupt brother's Thirteen Days and the subsequent movie) had more to do with luck, and the fact that the Soviets weren't crazy nutjobs willing to get themselves killed over Cuba.

Well said, Montesquieu! One of the saddest developments in American politics is that Republicans and conservatives, once bitter enemies of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy, are now praising them as exemplary models of leadership. How unfortunate that Victor Lasky's excellent JFK: The Man and the Myth (New Rochelle: NY Arlington House, 1963) is long out of print. Those dedicated to unearthing the truth about the man who would have ushered in what Rand called "the new fascism" should seek out this work from used book sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "liberal when it comes to social issues"?

I mean by social issues, even though this should be a none issue, "allowing" stem cell research, research into human cloning, abortion, euthanasia etc. So maybe social issues wasn't the correct term to use in that respect, but maybe more of a promoting of life type candidate.

Edited by Richard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean by social issues, even though this should be a none issue, "allowing" stem cell research, research into human cloning, abortion, euthanasia etc. So maybe social issues wasn't the correct term to use in that respect, but maybe more of a promoting of life type candidate.

Okay. It's just that when I see the term liberal on social issues I think things like Affirmative Action and Welfare. Stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. 

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts.

Voted YES on national education standards.

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy.

Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.

Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore, US & Chile

Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world.

Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on continuing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions.

Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage.

Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt.

Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees.

Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts.

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.

Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut.

Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.

Rated 17% by National Taxpayers Union, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

But he is tireless in his support of separation of church and state. I think after Bush is done we need a little cleansing. I think Feingold can do it. Sure he has a lot of positions that piss me off, but I think the Republicans will keep on caving in to the religous right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...