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

[gags]

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?

I'm not aware that she has made her positions known on anything other than foreign policy. Maybe others know more than I, but I haven't seen her even take a public stance on most domestic political issues. Let's face it, the conventional choices are fairly depressing.

[m8n8]

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!

Similar to the Revco pharmacist who doesn't believe in abortion yet has to sell the abortion pill.

Workin' for the man sometimes sucks and sometimes, you have to swallow your pride and integrity to put food on the table.....

I don't hold it against Kasich for not demeaning the drunken sailor spending policies of this adminstration and this congress.

You obviously do.

Yet, I'm sure I know more of John's character than perhaps you, as i am from his district.

[McGroarty]

I'm holding out for Condi/Bolton '08.

If only so I can see moveon.org go: :dough:

[The Wrath]

I'm holding out for Condi/Bolton '08.

If only so I can see moveon.org go:  :dough:

I don't know much about either of their politics, beyond foreign affairs...but, if that were to happen, I think that any bad that might come of it would be outweighed by the fact that it would spell out death for the United Nations.

[Toolboxnj]

I was talking about this again with some friends and said I'd probably vote for the Democratic candidate if it isn't Hillary Clinton-type. I think a strong-on-defense Democrat would take care of the WoT at least as well as Bush (who has failed miserably) and the Republican Congress would finally revolt against the massive spending and revert to being Republicans again.

Dr. Brook said that the best empirical combination against growing government is a Democrat president and a Republican Congress. What do I owe to the Republicans? Nothing. The Republicans will hold the Congress for the time being because of gerrymanding and redistricting.

But, as I've said again. Local and state politics has an influence on your life as well. We are having a gubernatorial race here in NJ between Senator Corzine and Businessman Doug Forrester. Not that I'm in love with Forrester, I'm certainly not. But, Corzine is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and I'd hate to see what he'd do to my state which is already hemorrhaging because of high taxes (notably property taxes, the highest in the country) and insurance rates.

[scottkursk]

But, as I've said again.  Local and state politics has an influence on your life as well.  We  are having a gubernatorial race here in NJ between Senator Corzine and Businessman Doug Forrester.  Not that I'm in love with Forrester, I'm certainly not.  But, Corzine is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and I'd hate to see what he'd do to my state which is already hemorrhaging because of high taxes (notably property taxes, the highest in the country) and insurance rates.

Check out When Genius Failed by Roger Lowenstein. It does a pretty good job of portraying Corzine of being exactly the kind of guy he is and it isn't pretty. I used to like him at Goldman and Sachs but after reading what he was really like behind the scenes, my respect for him as a person greatly waned.

It still amazes me how people who can work on the street and be good, actually darn good at it can turn out so exceedingly socialist.

[gags]

Check out When Genius Failed by Roger Lowenstein. It does a pretty good job of portraying Corzine of being exactly the kind of guy he is and it isn't pretty. I used to like him at Goldman and Sachs but after reading what he was really like behind the scenes, my respect for him as a person greatly waned.

It still amazes me how people who can work on the street and be good, actually darn good at it can turn out so exceedingly socialist.

I met Lowenstein a little while ago and read "Genius". It's quite a good book and he's an interesting guy. Oh and yes, Corzine is an odd bird.....not very admirable.

[Toolboxnj]

It still amazes me how people who can work on the street and be good, actually darn good at it can turn out so exceedingly socialist.

I'll check that book out.

For some reason those at GS tend to be big proponents of socialism, more than other investment firms on The Street.

[shane]

George Allen in '08

Here are his selling points from his website.

* Strengthening and supporting America's national defense and homeland security.

* Increasing the competitiveness of Virginia and the U.S. for investment and quality, good-paying jobs.

* Advocating and embracing policies to make America a leader in the advancement of technology.

* Reducing the tax burden on families and small business owners.

He says he " trusts free people and free enterprise" and mentions nothing about his religious views, even though I think he is Presbyterian.

[The Wrath]

Those are the most vague, generic stands that a candidate can possibly take. Every political candidate makes promises to "strengthen America's defense" and "reduce tax burden."

[shane]

Those are the most vague, generic stands that a candidate can possibly take. Every political candidate makes promises to "strengthen America's defense" and "reduce tax burden."

You can't find those standards on a dems page. He also embraces technology and competitevness. Not saying he's great yet, but it is a good start.

He is also a "realistic" candidate, unlike condi.

[Sturmgeschutz]

I hate all of the "realistic" choices. I refuse to vote for the lesser of any number of evils.

I'm planning on writing in Dick Cheney right now.

He's said repeatedly that he does not want to be president, but he is by far my favorite among the leading politicians. That's about as realistic as my vote is going to get.

I'd also be content with Alan Keyes, but his career got torpedoed this last election and he isn't holding an office that I know of. If he gets up and running again, maybe he'll be up for 2012.

That being said, I've been mentally prepared for Hillary to win in 2008 since about 2002. She's going to get it, unless something earth-shattering happens in the next couple years.

[softwareNerd]

I'd also be content with Alan Keyes,...

I'd rather have Howard Dean than Keyes, the religious fanatic.

[shane]

I hate all of the "realistic" choices. I refuse to vote for the lesser of any number of evils.

I'm planning on writing in Dick Cheney right now.

He's said repeatedly that he does not want to be president, but he is by far my favorite among the leading politicians. That's about as realistic as my vote is going to get.

I'd also be content with Alan Keyes, but his career got torpedoed this last election and he isn't holding an office that I know of. If he gets up and running again, maybe he'll be up for 2012.

That being said, I've been mentally prepared for Hillary to win in 2008 since about 2002. She's going to get it, unless something earth-shattering happens in the next couple years.

Dick is not a leading politician (he is an advisor, check his record), and even though he would be a good choice, he could never win a presidency race because he just doesn't want to be there.

And Hillary could never win either. People know in the back of their mind she is just riding Bill's fame and could never stand up to the task of running a country. It is one thing to be a spokesperson for a state that has been bombarded by regulation so long it doesn't know any better or doesn't care. It is another thing to be voted in by the rest of country that does no better or haven't been corrupted by the idea of compromise, with the exception of California. Yes i do think new york and california are states that have been corrupted by compromise and I am speaking about the states as a whole. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And when we talk about what we "realisitically" want for president, we are not talking about a compromise vs. objectivity. We are talking about what will happen. It doesn't mean because I vote for Bush I will stop spreading objectivism everywhere I go. I am not going on strike yet.

And dead politicians never come back from the grave. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

Edited December 16, 2005 by shane

[FeatherFall]

(emphasis mine)

And Hillary could never win either. People know in the back of their mind she is just riding Bill's fame and could never stand up to the task of running a country. It is one thing to be a spokesperson for a state that has been bombarded by regulation so long it doesn't know any better or doesn't care. It is another thing to be voted in by the rest of country that does no better or haven't been corrupted by the idea of compromise, with the exception of California. Yes i do think new york and california are states that have been corrupted by compromise and I am speaking about the states as a whole. Please correct me if I am wrong.

"Could never win?"

I don't think Hillary has a very good chance of winning, but I think she has a chance. Remember, New York and California are electoral powerhouses. Plus, Hilary is trying to give the appearance of tacking right on defense issues.

If Condi said she was running, I think she would have a chance, and I would vote for her given what I know now. I think she would be more likely to run as VP.

[FeatherFall]

Oh, and regarding Russ Feingold:

Although I give him credit for not voting for the Patriot Act (I think it was irresponsible for anyone to OK something they haven't read), I would cringe if he had a chance at the presidency. Having recently moved away from his state, I know a little about him.

Aside from the list of despicable votes that was listed earlier in this thread, he is the picture of a career politician. He is a neigh unstoppable candidate in Wisconsin because his values are malleable; he tailors his platforms so they will bring him more votes. Like Hilary, votes seem to be his only motivation. That sends up flags.

Edited December 16, 2005 by FeatherFall

[Captain Nate]

I would love Condi, but don't see her as a realistic candidate (maybe as VP). Right now, I'm leaning towards Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He has a successful business career and governed Democrat-controlled Massachusetts by streamlining government, creating a surplus from a 3-billion dollar deficit and all without raising taxes.

[gags]

That being said, I've been mentally prepared for Hillary to win in 2008 since about 2002. She's going to get it, unless something earth-shattering happens in the next couple years.

You're absolutely correct, IMO. Hillary is going to win because she understands that she has to moderate her views in order to capture votes. Deep down inside, Hillary is a Marxist pragmatist who will do and say nearly anything to get elected. Then, when she wins..... look out.

[shane]

I would love Condi, but don't see her as a realistic candidate (maybe as VP). Right now, I'm leaning towards Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He has a successful business career and governed Democrat-controlled Massachusetts by streamlining government, creating a surplus from a 3-billion dollar deficit and all without raising taxes.

Condi as VP....I could see that

Mitt does have a good record, although the surplus he created (700 mill or something like that) was a result of a booming economy. He was also asked by his company to come back and save if from ruin. I don't know if we have enough evidence to support he wouldn't raise taxes, but it is unlikely.

He was very active in outlawing same sex marriages, which is probably a result of the importance mormons' put on traditional "family" values.

On the neutral side, even though he doesn't believe in abortion he also doesn't want to outlaw it.

He seems to be a hard one to nail down which could be a major problem, definitely someone to watch.

But realistic he may not be. When Orrin Hatch was going to run in 2000, his polling found that 17% of americans would not vote for a mormon under any circumstances. That was 6 years ago though.

[shane]

You're absolutely correct, IMO. Hillary is going to win because she understands that she has to moderate her views in order to capture votes. Deep down inside, Hillary is a Marxist pragmatist who will do and say nearly anything to get elected. Then, when she wins..... look out.

Every politician knows that they are going to have to be moderate on the issues, and they are all out to get votes. That is the name of the game. Whoever ends up being nominated against Hillary will play the same game.

I think it will come down to about 20% discretionary votes that won't go Hillary's way because

1. She has a controversial past. Period. When it comes down to protecting the country people want rock solid.

2. She is a flip-flopper. There are only a certain number of times you can "moderate your views in order to capture votes" without losing credibility.

Personally, I think she has already lost her credibility. Now it will be up to the Repubs to show the country that fact without looking like mudslingers.

This is just assuming that she gets far enough to get nominated. She is getting a lot of attention though, and that will help her get nominated. I can already hear the broadcasters asking "Can she do it?"

[gags]

The media are in love with Hillary. They can't say anything bad about her. She's the smartest woman in America, didn't you know?

I thought for sure that the people in this country were smart enough to see through her husband's line of B.S., but I was wrong....... twice.

[shane]

The media are in love with Hillary. They can't say anything bad about her. She's the smartest woman in America, didn't you know?

I thought for sure that the people in this country were smart enough to see through her husband's line of B.S., but I was wrong....... twice.

Doesn't look good for the rest of the women in america!!

I watch business oriented television and they tend to hate taxes and regulation, so thankfully I wouldn't know. It is interesting though how horrible dems look on a business show, since businessmen tend to be fact-getters. I would really suggest watching Kudlow and Company for some inspiring capitalistic debates.