I'm In! - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

loquitur · 01-26-2007, 06:00 AM

I'd like to know why it is that no one is taking Chris Dodd seriously as a candidate. He's a good guy. Ditto for Bill Richardson, who has a terrific resume.

I'm really mystified as to why Democrats keep putting forth such unattractive candidates in the last 30 years (not that all the Repubs were such bargains, but the bad track record of the Dems is really astonishing). Except for Clinton, who is many things but not an unattractive candidate, in the elections I voted in I was presented by the Democratic party with Jimmy Carter (incompetent AND moralistic), Walter Mondale (nice fellow, bland to the point of resembling a slice of Wonder Bread), Michael Dukakis (colorless, pedantic), Al Gore (actually not such a bad guy, but also charisma-challenged) and John Kerry (all the charm of a tree stump, coupled with a prickly demeanor). What is the reason for this? When I was a kid the Dems ran Hubert Humphrey. John Kennedy. I look at the current Dem field and the only one who has an exciting feel is John Edwards, who unfortunately also strikes me as having nothing behind the facade (sorry, it's my prejudice against pretty boys).

I am coming to think that our country's method for selecting candidates is not a good one. The skein of primaries is not good at selecting out the best candidates. And the structure of the system turns a lot of potential good candidates off.

I should add, btw, that in 2000 GWB was not the best candidate for the Republicans to put forth. John McCain was. Again: the structure of the system was not designed to bring the best person forward.

pan6467 · 01-26-2007, 06:32 AM

The Dems tend to pick someone and crown them before any primary. IF someone does surprise and gains steam they work to destroy the person.

'84 they WANTED Mondale..... Hart be damned. Can't blame them really, they didn't want to throw out one of their young guns to be destroyed by an unbeatable Reagan, so they send a reliable workhorse whoserved the position of sacrificial lamb (we saw the GOP do this with Dole in '96).

'88 they WANTED Dukakis..... Glenn be damned, Hart was destroyed

'92 they crowned Clinton

'00 was Gore everyone else step aside

'04 Kerry hand picked and everyone else go to Hell, Dean scared him for a minute.

This coming year they wanted to ordain Mrs. Clinton, but Obama entered and now they are splitting..... the person that will benefit most from this and may end up getting the nod..... Edwards (my man). Simply because I see Obama and Clinton destroying each other, to the point they may not even win the senate ever again.

The GOP..... hard to say but I don't see McCain getting it, I don't see the crown being handed to Guiliani or Pataki either. But I do see the GOP heading more centrist pissing off the Religious Right with their decision and losing big, the GOP may even pick someone they know will lose, simply so they can show the moderates how badly the party needs to stay in favor with the Religious Right.... (but this is dependant on a somewhat respectable Dem Congress.... if the Dems come off in Congress as lousy.... the GOP could run Kermit the Frog in '08 and win.)

desal75 · 01-26-2007, 07:01 AM

Loquitur, so you mean to tell me that you don't like spending some of the highest taxes in the country but still receiving below average public services?

At least the SUNY system is good.

loquitur · 01-26-2007, 10:16 AM

People in NYC pay THE highest taxes in the country, Desal. But you know what? The services in NYC until about 12 years ago were so bad that right now the place seems to be nirvana, so I'm really not complaining. Maybe it's just perspective. I might feel differently if I had lived elsewhere.

Doesn't mean we dno't have a dysfunctional, corrupt state government. The clamor about earmarks at the federal level is comical - the Albany people have raised it to a new level.

roachboy · 01-27-2007, 10:36 AM

folk are discussing the publc constructions of clinton and obama for the democrats (amongst other things)--what about mccain for the right?

caveat: i think that one of the fundamental problems with the american electoral system is the length of the campaign--which seems more about favoring the most heavily financed campaign over all others----and so is about generating signs of twtching "life" to attract pollination from money-bees--and only secondarily (at best) about informing voters of anything. i see no reason why this particular sporting event--the primaries before the primaries, the horserace between presidentpotentials--has tog et underway now. it is as irritating as the way in which xmas spreads itself into the whole of november, knocking up against halloween as the signal for the annual onslought of dreadful music and capitalist cheer to get under way.

that said, i wonder what folk who have the stomach for this money-season think of the article by sydney blumenthal that appeared in this morning's guardian about mccain. do you think it accurate? why or why not?
i think that if this is anything like accurate, mccain is far more unelectable than anyone the democrats are floating now...but i am not sure, so.

Quote:

The myth of McCain

Once the presumptive next US president, the Republican frontrunner's popularity has nose dived

Sidney Blumenthal
Saturday January 27, 2007
The Guardian

When Senator John McCain appeared at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth last October as the presumptive next president of the US, the stars seemed fixed in the firmament for him. The myth of McCain appeared as invincible as ever.

His war story - a bomber pilot shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, held prisoner for five years and tortured - is the basis of his legend as morally courageous, authentic, unwavering in his convictions, an independent reformer willing to take on the reactionaries of his own party, an "American maverick" as he calls himself in his campaign autobiography.

The titles of his books reflect the image: Character Is Destiny, Why Courage Matters, and Faith of My Fathers. Defeat at the hands of George Bush in the battle for the Republican nomination in 2000, in which he was subjected to dirty tricks, completed his canonisation. The press corps so venerated him that he called them "my base".

McCain's political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero - a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to "shut up", and called fellow Republican senators "shithead ... fucking jerk ... asshole". A few months ago, McCain suddenly rushed up to a friend of mine, a prominent Washington lawyer, at a social event, and threatened to beat him up because he represented a client McCain happened to dislike. Then, just as suddenly, profusely and tearfully, he apologised.

Many Republicans who have had dealings with McCain distrust him (not just conservatives but traditional Republican moderates too). While taking rightwing positions on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, his simmering resentment of Bush led him virtually to caucus with the Democrats in early 2001 (before September 11). Then, abruptly, he rushed to embrace Bush.

McCain's political advisers believe that he would easily be elected president in 2008, but fear that he might not capture the nomination. In 2000 he did not win a primary state where the voting was restricted to Republicans. So McCain decided to let the election take care of itself as he won over the party faithful. He campaigned enthusiastically for Bush in 2004. He sought to reconcile with the religious right, whose leaders he had called "agents of intolerance" in 2000.

McCain had belatedly taken the lead in opposing Bush's torture policy, an issue that could not be more personal for him. But after the supreme court last year declared Bush's secret tribunals for detainees and use of extreme interrogation techniques illegal, the president sought congressional approval of his version. At first, McCain fought Bush, but the right attacked him. McCain quickly capitulated, even agreeing to suspension of habeas corpus. Someone close to him explained to me that McCain calculated he could continue to play the issue when he became chairman of the Senate armed services committee in the next Congress. Asked about the chance that the Democrats might take control, McCain declared: "I think I'd just commit suicide."

As the neoconservatives abandoned Bush's sinking ship, McCain welcomed them aboard. "McCain began reading the Weekly Standard and conferring with its editors, particularly Bill Kristol," the New Republic magazine reported. And he hired a board member of the neocon Project for the New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, as his foreign-policy aide.

McCain positioned himself as consistently belligerent, even to Bush's right: in favour of bombing Iran and North Korea. He also proposed a "surge" of troops into Iraq, an idea gleaned from the neocons. If Bush had adopted the Iraq Study Group approach of diplomacy and redeployment, which McCain had assailed as "dispiriting", the right would have hailed McCain as a prophet with honour. However, importuned by the same neocons who had sold it to McCain, Bush seized upon the "surge".

McCain had trapped himself. He is now chained to Bush. As Bush's war has escalated, McCain's popularity has nose dived. Still the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, he might have made himself more acceptable to the base, but his political strategy has shattered his myth. Bearing the burden of Bush, he may have become unelectable.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...999819,00.html

loquitur · 01-27-2007, 08:29 PM

RB, right now Giuliani outpolls McCain among the "base" - which, to me, as a NYC resident, is amazing.

pan6467 · 01-28-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

RB, right now Giuliani outpolls McCain among the "base" - which, to me, as a NYC resident, is amazing.

Yeah, but his indiscretions such as divorcing his wife for some woman 20 years younger or something, and I've heard he has had others, haven't reared their heads yet.

One thing about the national voting majority, they will see an adulterer and whether he has good policies or not and he'll lose their vote.

loquitur · 01-28-2007, 11:24 AM

I wonder........ the "base" seems to know about Giuliani being gay-friendly and pro-gun-control and just shrugs. I don't know how sanguine they'll be about the adultery part.

mixedmedia · 01-28-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Yeah, but his indiscretions such as divorcing his wife for some woman 20 years younger or something, and I've heard he has had others, haven't reared their heads yet.

One thing about the national voting majority, they will see an adulterer and whether he has good policies or not and he'll lose their vote.

Not only that but he tongue kissed the woman on national tv at the first New Year's Eve broadcast after 9/11. Of course, that stuff doesn't bother me - I could care less, but the hyenas will run with it.

loquitur · 01-29-2007, 11:06 AM

I guess it's going to depend on people's priorities. Most people were pretty damned impressed with Giuliani's leadership skills in the aftermath of 9/11 and I would guess they would be willing to cut him some slack in his personal life. I live in NY and benefitted from his mayoralty, which was overwhelmingly positive, but I do have some other issues with him (for one thing, he isn't too good about dissent). I just don't know how people in other parts of the country will take to him - he's not warm and fuzzy, and much of the rest of the country doesn't much care for NY - and he is very New York.

Xazy · 01-29-2007, 05:45 PM

I can never vote for Hilary. While I will give you she is bright, ambitious, smart I do not feel that she is worthy of my support. All her talk for years now about healthcare she has yet to ever do anything for it (until she announced her running for president). No one mentions but she used to be on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, which is known for having horrible healthcare plan.

I am disgusted by her initial run where her husband gave her a nice gift by pardoning a group of individuals from New Square. That community votes in a block and by pardoning these men they literally bought a whole group of individuals.

It is not like she has done that much for us as our senator that anyone else can do (well unless you want to talk about her useless fight against video game companies). This is just a few small reasons why I dislike her.

Needless to say, it is a no to Hilary for me.

View Poll Results: Who Do You Vote For?
Hillary Clinton	9	23.68%
Barak Obama	29	76.32%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

01-26-2007, 06:00 AM	#81 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'd like to know why it is that no one is taking Chris Dodd seriously as a candidate. He's a good guy. Ditto for Bill Richardson, who has a terrific resume. I'm really mystified as to why Democrats keep putting forth such unattractive candidates in the last 30 years (not that all the Repubs were such bargains, but the bad track record of the Dems is really astonishing). Except for Clinton, who is many things but <b>not</b> an unattractive candidate, in the elections I voted in I was presented by the Democratic party with Jimmy Carter (incompetent AND moralistic), Walter Mondale (nice fellow, bland to the point of resembling a slice of Wonder Bread), Michael Dukakis (colorless, pedantic), Al Gore (actually not such a bad guy, but also charisma-challenged) and John Kerry (all the charm of a tree stump, coupled with a prickly demeanor). What is the reason for this? When I was a kid the Dems ran <i><b>Hubert Humphrey</i></b>. John Kennedy. I look at the current Dem field and the only one who has an exciting feel is John Edwards, who unfortunately also strikes me as having nothing behind the facade (sorry, it's my prejudice against pretty boys). I am coming to think that our country's method for selecting candidates is not a good one. The skein of primaries is not good at selecting out the best candidates. And the structure of the system turns a lot of potential good candidates off. I should add, btw, that in 2000 GWB was not the best candidate for the Republicans to put forth. John McCain was. Again: the structure of the system was not designed to bring the best person forward. Last edited by loquitur; 01-26-2007 at 06:02 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-26-2007, 06:32 AM	#82 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	The Dems tend to pick someone and crown them before any primary. IF someone does surprise and gains steam they work to destroy the person. '84 they WANTED Mondale..... Hart be damned. Can't blame them really, they didn't want to throw out one of their young guns to be destroyed by an unbeatable Reagan, so they send a reliable workhorse whoserved the position of sacrificial lamb (we saw the GOP do this with Dole in '96). '88 they WANTED Dukakis..... Glenn be damned, Hart was destroyed '92 they crowned Clinton '00 was Gore everyone else step aside '04 Kerry hand picked and everyone else go to Hell, Dean scared him for a minute. This coming year they wanted to ordain Mrs. Clinton, but Obama entered and now they are splitting..... the person that will benefit most from this and may end up getting the nod..... Edwards (my man). Simply because I see Obama and Clinton destroying each other, to the point they may not even win the senate ever again. The GOP..... hard to say but I don't see McCain getting it, I don't see the crown being handed to Guiliani or Pataki either. But I do see the GOP heading more centrist pissing off the Religious Right with their decision and losing big, the GOP may even pick someone they know will lose, simply so they can show the moderates how badly the party needs to stay in favor with the Religious Right.... (but this is dependant on a somewhat respectable Dem Congress.... if the Dems come off in Congress as lousy.... the GOP could run Kermit the Frog in '08 and win.) __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-26-2007, 07:01 AM	#83 (permalink)
desal75 Psycho Location: Western New York	Loquitur, so you mean to tell me that you don't like spending some of the highest taxes in the country but still receiving below average public services? At least the SUNY system is good. __________________ The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

01-26-2007, 10:16 AM	#84 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	People in NYC pay THE highest taxes in the country, Desal. But you know what? The services in NYC until about 12 years ago were so bad that right now the place seems to be nirvana, so I'm really not complaining. Maybe it's just perspective. I might feel differently if I had lived elsewhere. Doesn't mean we dno't have a dysfunctional, corrupt state government. The clamor about earmarks at the federal level is comical - the Albany people have raised it to a new level.

01-27-2007, 08:29 PM	#86 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	RB, right now Giuliani outpolls McCain among the "base" - which, to me, as a NYC resident, is amazing.

01-28-2007, 11:24 AM	#88 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I wonder........ the "base" seems to know about Giuliani being gay-friendly and pro-gun-control and just shrugs. I don't know how sanguine they'll be about the adultery part.

01-29-2007, 11:06 AM	#90 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I guess it's going to depend on people's priorities. Most people were pretty damned impressed with Giuliani's leadership skills in the aftermath of 9/11 and I would guess they would be willing to cut him some slack in his personal life. I live in NY and benefitted from his mayoralty, which was overwhelmingly positive, but I do have some other issues with him (for one thing, he isn't too good about dissent). I just don't know how people in other parts of the country will take to him - he's not warm and fuzzy, and much of the rest of the country doesn't much care for NY - and he is very New York.

01-29-2007, 05:45 PM	#91 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I can never vote for Hilary. While I will give you she is bright, ambitious, smart I do not feel that she is worthy of my support. All her talk for years now about healthcare she has yet to ever do anything for it (until she announced her running for president). No one mentions but she used to be on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, which is known for having horrible healthcare plan. I am disgusted by her initial run where her husband gave her a nice gift by pardoning a group of individuals from New Square. That community votes in a block and by pardoning these men they literally bought a whole group of individuals. It is not like she has done that much for us as our senator that anyone else can do (well unless you want to talk about her useless fight against video game companies). This is just a few small reasons why I dislike her. Needless to say, it is a no to Hilary for me.