Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I can't get very enthusiastic about a politico who supports the first clause of the First Amendment and then leads the charge to crush the second clause. McCain-Feingold is the most pernicious attack on free speech since the end of World War II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why?

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" -- Hillary Clinton, 2004

Well, the choice will be that or not voting. I really do not like not voting because that simply leaves the decision to someone else. Also, I do not think the U.S. is anyway near a point of no return where the vote really does not matter.

If Hillary were in, I would hope (not without reason) that the Congress will remain Republican and give us some much-needed governmental inaction.

To put this in context: it is a choice of the lesser evil. Also, I might think differently if events take an unexpected turn between now and 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I read a good piece on Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich in Liberty Magazine (I know, I know.. an anarchist rag.. but I still read it) that sounds fairly encouraging. He's not perfect (who is?), but seems to grasp personal freedoms a bit better than most others. I'd tend to gravitate toward the "blue-state Republicans" who are governors to look for 2008 candidates.

Objectivists have been picking on Hillary for a while now (ever since Hillarycare). I remember a tape lecture with Andrew Bernstein where he said Hillary was "an unfortunate name" :thumbsup:

Looking at it, Rudy v. Hillary is probably worse than Kerry v. Bush. Hopefully Rudy will stay out of things (I used to like him, but I don't anymore). From what I've read, Condi Rice is more of a social "moderate" and probably wouldn't kiss the ring of the religious/Christian right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll never happen.  Americans will never be ready for an atheist president.

Atheism is the least of the reasons an Objectivist couldn't get elected. Between our "zero tolerance" for drug laws and business regulation, there's something to offend almost everyone.

Just look at the Libertarian Party. For all it gets slammed by Objectivists, its political positions are so close to identical that the voting public isn't going to see any difference. The LP's high-water mark in presidential elections is, if I recall correctly, something short of 2% in nine tries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at the Libertarian Party.  For all it gets slammed by Objectivists, its political positions are so close to identical that the voting public isn't going to see any difference.  The LP's high-water mark in presidential elections is, if I recall correctly, something short of 2% in nine tries.

Would you ever vote for a Libertarian then, even though the basis of all their beliefs is irrational (they try to appeal to almost everyone - from Christians to Homosexuals, etc.)?

I think that if the state of America ever needed a huge overhaul (which I forsee is a good possiblity for the near to far future of this country) I think that an Objectivist might appeal to the public.

Edited by studentofobjectivism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you ever vote for a Libertarian then, even though the basis of all their beliefs is irrational (they try to appeal to almost everyone - from Christians to Homosexuals, etc.)?

I think that if the state of America ever needed a huge overhaul (which I forsee is a good possiblity for the near to far future of this country) I think that an Objectivist might appeal to the public.

Great! Why not start an Objectivist political party? (Shall we call it the "Party of Reality, Reason and Rights"?) Of course, the cost to get such a party on the ballot in all 50 states would be in the several millions. However, falling short of that goal, there is no reason why a highly motivated (as well as attractive and persuasive) individual over the age of 18 could not run for public office on an Objectivist platform. Don't forget to tell the electorate that you favor abortion and drug usage rights and also want to pump up the War on Terror and extend it to Iran and N. Korea. Test the waters and then come back and give us a report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great!  Why not start an Objectivist political party? (Shall we call it the "Party of Reality, Reason and Rights"?)  Of course, the cost to get such a party on the ballot in all 50 states would be in the several millions.  However, falling short of that goal, there is no reason why a highly motivated (as well as attractive and persuasive) individual over the age of 18 could not run for public office on an Objectivist platform.  Don't forget to tell the electorate that you favor abortion and drug usage rights and also want to pump up the War on Terror and extend it to Iran and N. Korea.  Test the waters and then come back and give us a report.

I find your sarcasm highly amusing!! :pimp: Thanks for puting me back in my place in the food chain. :lol:

I think that a Galt's Gulch type of thing might be needed in the not too far future. That would be a trip.

Edited by studentofobjectivism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
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.

Whoaaaah, uninformed dude! There isn't any law anywhere in this country banning stem cell research!!!!! The Left wants taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush has said that it is wrong to use federal funding on 'new' lines. This isn't about stem cell research - it's about pork barrel politics. Don't buy into the lies of the left on the basic facts. It prevents you from reaching the correct answer.

To address the basic question asked, I am not sure who I support. They're all various forms of garbage. I would probably prefer Frist even though I know he won't slow the increase in government spending any more than what Bush has done (none).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have been throwing out Condi Rice quite a bit even though the original question stipulated "realistically". Someone who has never run for ANYTHING cannot be considered realistic for the Presidency.

What about Mitt Romney? Ehrlich isn't all that realistic but Romney has pretty much thrown his hat in the ring. There are a lot of reasons to believe that he can at least run a credible campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condi v.s Hilary, about time US had a female to sort things out - never know, Condi could be your Thatcher. And a black Thatcher! thats two fingers to the Christian right! She'd have my vote.

Where does Condi stand on the jailing of Martha Stewart? On new tariffs imposed by the Bush administration? On increased government spending (up by 30% since Clinton)? On the Prescription Drug Benefit? On mortgage welfare? On what Bush's new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors calls "positive inflation"?

Before we start rallying behind a new leader shouldn't we have at least some vague idea of what she stands for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had my choice this would be my ticket.

John Kasich and Newt Gingrich....together again!!

Newt is the man and Kasich was the architect of the balanced budget amendment when he was chairman of the budget committee in the house.

Additionally, Kasich is a politician you can take at his word.

He was against "career" politicians but was winning his House seat by 95% - 5% margins every year he ran. Yet, because of his conviction about "career politicians" he chose NOT TO RUN though he would have won his seat again easily.

Support John Kasich for President.

http://www.newcenturyproject.org/about/about_bio.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had my choice this would be my ticket.

John Kasich and Newt Gingrich....together again!!

Newt is the man and Kasich was the architect of the balanced budget amendment when he was chairman of the budget committee in the house.

http://www.newcenturyproject.org/about/about_bio.html

For all his conservative rhetoric, as Speaker of the House Gingrich did nothing to roll back big government.

There was no reduction in foreign aid, no attempt to repeal the Brady Bill, no move to get rid of federally imposed privileges for minority groups, no real cuts in federal spending, no move to curb the power of the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency, no effort to abolish the IRS. His current cozy relationship with Hillary Clinton for healthcare "reform" should surprise no one.

Kasich's record as a tax cutter is much better. However, in his new job as a Fox News host, I've yet to see him offer any sharp criticisms of the "Lyndon Baines" Bush administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kasich's record as a tax cutter is much better. However, in his new job as a Fox News host, I've yet to see him offer any sharp criticisms of the "Lyndon Baines" Bush administration.

You need to look no further than John Kasich's Congressional voting record to find his "conservatism"...

How much good would a "gripe" about the Prez. do though, coming from a TV host?? In his current position, and working for Fox News, he can't very well go out and bash the President and Congress considering the leanings and audience of one Fox News channel....

I agree with you on Gingrich though. That's why he is the V.P. candidate in my scenario....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to look no further than John Kasich's Congressional voting record to find his "conservatism"...

How much good would a "gripe" about the Prez. do though, coming from a TV host?? 

Are you suggesting that Fox News hosts like Kasich, Hannity and O'Reilly have no influence over the public?

In his current position, and working for Fox News, he can't very well go out and bash the President and Congress considering the leanings and audience of one Fox News channel....

Wow, what a tribute to Kasich's integrity!

I agree with you on Gingrich though.  That's why he is the V.P. candidate in my scenario....

Yes, Gingrich will certainly help the ticket get the support of big government voters.

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...