I'm afraid of the candidates :( - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 12-17-2007, 07:44 AM

Hillary Clinton? She's owned by corporations. Her fake personality makes me cry a little.

Barack Obama? He's green. He ignores the things that mean the most to me. He focuses on talking points, not real points of change.

Rudy Guiliani? You pronounce his name "Stooge" as in, stooge to the "neo-con" agenda. I can totally see my future going up in smoke if this guy gains any power. What a fraud.

Mike Huckabee? Dear god no! An unaccredited religious nutball with a history of pardoning criminals because they "found Jesus." I fear for my personal rights with this guy anywhere near power.

Mitt Romney? Shit, another religious creep. Having dated a Mormon and having learned as much as I can about the KIND of people who get involved with it, I am righteously opposed to this guy as well. Its bad enough that these candidates bank on their religious beliefs. Its worse when they insinuate that freedom requires religion. What the fuck.

John McCain? Aside form the fact that his face scares me, he is creepy in many more ways. Like the fact that he is responsible for the cover-up of all POW information since Vietnam. Like the fact that he is 100% into this fucked up war. Like the fact that he could die at any moment. An even more corrupt VP could take office at any moment.

Fred Thompson? Another religious freak. I'm up to my ears in religious freaks. I've had enough of this shit running my country because it's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!

Dennis Kucinich? He has a good platform, but I fear for my MONEY if he gets power. Shit, who is going to pay for all this free shit he wants to give away? I cant make use of any of it, but I'll probably have to give up 20% more of my paycheck just so all my ghetto neighbors live better.

Ron Paul? I'll probably end up voting for this guy because he is the lesser of all evils. He shows up like an angel on the charts that list lobbyist contributions, but that's because he's bringing up the rear. His policy is messianic, and its helped me realize how conservative *I* am. However, its too conservative, to the point where it allows for too many wild cards to turn over the wrong way. Leave industries to self-regulation? Ouch.

What happened to middle of the road politics? Why is Bill Clinton's wife EVIL? No wonder he was gettin' head from Monica. What's wrong with liberalism? Why is everyone so fucking afraid of it?

I'm scared!

Ustwo · 12-17-2007, 08:21 AM

No one electable scares me as much as just disappoints me.

Somethings not right when a nation with so many great people have choices like this. I know this get lamented every election, but this one seems worse than most.

The_Jazz · 12-17-2007, 08:34 AM

Liberalism is the new communism. The same arguments that were made 20-50 years ago about communists are being made now about liberals.

Personally, of the frontrunners I like Obama a lot (full disclosure: I'd vote for Richardson over Obama, but he's not going to get the numbers he needs). I met Obama when he was a state senator, and he's a very likeable, very smart guy. When you talk about experience, what do you mean? He's been in government for a while, although not at the national level.

Hal, I'm not sure why you don't like McCain. He seems to be the one Republican that's absolutely AGAINST mistreatment of POW's/enemy combatants. He's probably the Republican I'd vote, just like Obama would be the Democrat.

I think that the main problem here is that we all look back at past presidencies with rose-colored glasses. You might even find a Republican or two admitting that the Clinton years might not have been so bad, just like you'll find Democrats admitting that Reagan wasn't evil personified. Right now, we're trying to guess who the best man for the job is. In my opinion, we've guess wrong the last two times, but that's me.

Halx · 12-17-2007, 08:41 AM

Jazz, McCain is disgusting with his policies and intentions. He's a "good ol' boy" when it comes to this war. Those who stand to profit from it are all behind him.

ratbastid · 12-17-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Jazz, McCain is disgusting with his policies and intentions. He's a "good ol' boy" when it comes to this war. Those who stand to profit from it are all behind him.

Plus he's ALWAYS been as crafty and calculating as we're now seeing Hillary as being. McCain's a cross between a chameleon and a weasel.

The_Jazz · 12-17-2007, 08:50 AM

Oh, I agree with that completely. My point was more about the POW question. On that topic, at least, he seems pretty much beyond reproach. He's been very consistent about trying to get the Bush Administration to own up to practicing torture and to stop.

Beyond that, he's an absolute hawk, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows much about his biography (former fighter pilot and service academy grad).

sprocket · 12-17-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Hillary Clinton? She's owned by corporations. Her fake personality makes me cry a little.

Barack Obama? He's green. He ignores the things that mean the most to me. He focuses on talking points, not real points of change.

Rudy Guiliani? You pronounce his name "Stooge" as in, stooge to the "neo-con" agenda. I can totally see my future going up in smoke if this guy gains any power. What a fraud.

Mike Huckabee? Dear god no! An unaccredited religious nutball with a history of pardoning criminals because they "found Jesus." I fear for my personal rights with this guy anywhere near power.

Mitt Romney? Shit, another religious creep. Having dated a Mormon and having learned as much as I can about the KIND of people who get involved with it, I am righteously opposed to this guy as well. Its bad enough that these candidates bank on their religious beliefs. Its worse when they insinuate that freedom requires religion. What the fuck.

John McCain? Aside form the fact that his face scares me, he is creepy in many more ways. Like the fact that he is responsible for the cover-up of all POW information since Vietnam. Like the fact that he is 100% into this fucked up war. Like the fact that he could die at any moment. An even more corrupt VP could take office at any moment.

Fred Thompson? Another religious freak. I'm up to my ears in religious freaks. I've had enough of this shit running my country because it's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!

Dennis Kucinich? He has a good platform, but I fear for my MONEY if he gets power. Shit, who is going to pay for all this free shit he wants to give away? I cant make use of any of it, but I'll probably have to give up 20% more of my paycheck just so all my ghetto neighbors live better.

Ron Paul? I'll probably end up voting for this guy because he is the lesser of all evils. He shows up like an angel on the charts that list lobbyist contributions, but that's because he's bringing up the rear. His policy is messianic, and its helped me realize how conservative *I* am. However, its too conservative, to the point where it allows for too many wild cards to turn over the wrong way. Leave industries to self-regulation? Ouch.

EDIT:
Well, theres another import facet to his beliefs that often gets ignored when he talks about removing federal regulation... and that is that states can pick up much of the regulatory roles that he wants to remove at the federal level. Decentralizing regulation from the federal government doesn't necessarily mean that states wont or cant pick up some of the slack.

Quote:

What happened to middle of the road politics? Why is Bill Clinton's wife EVIL? No wonder he was gettin' head from Monica. What's wrong with liberalism? Why is everyone so fucking afraid of it?

I'm scared!

These are pretty much my thoughts exactly. Although I am supporting Ron Paul, and show my enthusiasm for him in the other threads, I come accross as much more enthusiastic than I really am. I have my doubts as to whether or not he would actually make a good president.

He really does have some charisma issues, and seems to get flustered quite easily. His message is exactly what I want to hear, but the devil is in the details, especially for the president.

roachboy · 12-17-2007, 09:12 AM

what do folk want from a presidential candidate?
what are you looking for?

this seems a curiously royalist thread, like we are surveying the pretenders to the throne who might follow the aging and decrepit present king and are trying to figure out which abstraction, which "personality" fits best with--well what?

at this point, most of the "coverage" of the horse race between pretenders to the throne seems to be about money: candidate x will say something, funding streams will react in directions on, off, neutral....it's like some bizarre little stock market--we watch the relative prices of obama vs. guilani go up and down as if this was rational, and because there is money being streamed into politics, it is a market and so is necessary and so is rational.

on the other hand, we are little royalists in a way---j.g. ballard was right in "the secret history of world war 3" that television makes us all ultra-royalist in that we collapse the political onto the person of the el jeffe.

very strange business, all this.

Ustwo · 12-17-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Plus he's ALWAYS been as crafty and calculating as we're now seeing Hillary as being. McCain's a cross between a chameleon and a weasel.

McCain is a camera whore, always has been.

Hilary has always been transparent as well, maybe its easy to see from the other side but her motivations and methods were pretty clear from the day she got elected.

dc_dux · 12-17-2007, 10:01 AM

I have no fear of any of the major Democratic candidates, but I am highly partisan

My preference would be for a Dodd/Richardson ticket, but I believe Obama is the best candidate in either party of being the type of conciliator that could begin to bridge the growing divide betwen left and right or red amd blue.

Hilary has been vilified by the right for 15 years to the point where her reputation cannot be salvaged, although she is probably one of the best and brightest policy wonks among all the candidates.

Religious candidates scare me, particularly Huckabee with his background in the baptist ministry. (I am not against Baptist, but I dont want policy decisions made on a fundamentalist or strict interpretation of those or any religous beliefs and/or the Bible)

Most here know that I dont like extremist on either end (Paul/Kucinich) or believe the country is ready and willing to support such candidates.

What scares me most is not the WHO...its the HOW MUCH. To date, the presidential candidates have raised and are expected to spend over $400 million combined in the primaries alone.

The nominees are likely to raise and spend $500 million each before the election in November...our first BILLION DOLLAR election.

That is obscene and needs to be addressed.

Ustwo · 12-17-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Hilary has been vilified by the right for 15 years to the point where her reputation cannot be salvaged, although she is probably one of the best and brightest policy wonks among all the candidates.

Yea, its a vast right wing conspiracy

Same reason she would only do fluff interviews too I'm sure.

dc_dux · 12-17-2007, 10:08 AM

Ustwo....thanks for your insight

Funny how you are so critical of the Bush bashers, but are unwilling to recognize or acknowlege that it exists on both sides.

Ustwo · 12-17-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo....thanks for your insight

Funny how you are so critical of the Bush bashers, but are unwilling to recognize or acknowlege that it exists on both sides.

The right didn't sink Hilary, Hilary is doing that job nicely on her own. I'm sort of ambivalent to it though as I'm not sure who is less electable, her or Obama.

host · 12-17-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Hal, I'm not sure why you don't like McCain. He seems to be the one Republican that's absolutely AGAINST mistreatment of POW's/enemy combatants. He's probably the Republican I'd vote, just like Obama would be the Democrat....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Oh, I agree with that completely. My point was more about the POW question. On that topic, at least, he seems pretty much beyond reproach. <b>He's been very consistent about trying to get the Bush Administration to own up to practicing torture and to stop.</b>

Beyond that, he's an absolute hawk, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows much about his biography (former fighter pilot and service academy grad).

Huh? Did you miss McCain's collossal "flip flop", cave-in, roll over, on his "core values", a year ago?

Quote:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde..._id=&Issue_id=
MCCAIN URGES FINAL PASSAGE OF THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006
September 28, 2006

Washington D.C. omg- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following remarks on the floor of the Senate regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

....."Finally, I would note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the New York Times editorial page. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I would simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the Administration's original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision, and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.

"I urge my colleagues to support this legislation."

<h3>Wait a minute....shouldn't John McCain have written this statment, instead?</h3>

Quote:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806c.html
Republican-Led Senate Endorses White House-Backed Bill, 65-34

Leahy Opposes ‘Flagrantly Unconstitutional’ Military Commission Bill --

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On the Military Commissions Act, S. 3930
September 28, 2006

It is from strength that America should defend our values and our Constitution. It takes commitment to those values to demand accountability from the Government. In standing up for American values and security, I will vote against this bill.

A Giant Step Away From Fairness And Accountability....

......We have taken our eye off the ball in the fight against the terrorists. That is essentially what all of our intelligence agencies concluded in the National Intelligence Estimate that the Administration has had for six months, but that the rest of us just learned about this weekend. Our retooled and reorganized intelligence agencies, with leadership hand-picked by this Administration, have concluded, contrary to the campaign rhetoric of the President and Vice President, that the Iraq War has become a “cause celebre” that has inspired a new generation of terrorists. Surely, the shameful mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, at secret CIA prisons and which were facilitated by torturers in countries where the U.S. Government shipped people, have become other “causes celebre” and recruiting tools for our enemies. Surely, the continued occupation of Iraq, when close to three-fourths of Iraqis want U.S. forces to depart, is another circumstance being exploited by our enemies to mischaracterize America.

Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse, is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions, and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill. .......

..... Chilling Implications

The proposed legislation would also allow the admission of evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment into military commission proceedings. This provision would once again allow this Administration to avoid all accountability for its misguided policies which have contributed to the rise of a new generation of terrorists who threaten us. Not only would the military commissions legislation before us immunize those who violated international law and stomped on basic American values, but it would allow them then to use the evidence obtained in violation of basic principles of fairness and justice.

Allowing in this evidence would violate our basic standards of fairness without increasing our security. Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen arrested by our government on bad intelligence and sent to Syria to be tortured, confessed to attending terrorist training camps. A Canadian commission investigating the case found that his confessions had no basis in fact. They merely reflected that he was being tortured, and he told his torturers what they wanted to hear. It is only one of many such documented cases of bad information resulting from torture. We gain nothing from allowing such information.

The military commissions legislation departs in other unfortunate ways from the Warner-Levin bill. Early this week, apparently at the White House’s request, Republican drafters added a breathtakingly broad definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” which includes people – citizens and non-citizens alike – who have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities” against the United States or its allies. It also includes people determined to be unlawful enemy combatants by any “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense. So the Government can select any person, including a United States citizen, whom it suspects of supporting hostilities – whatever that means – and begin denying that person the rights and processes guaranteed in our country. The implications are chilling.

I am sorry that the Republican leadership squandered the chance to consider and pass bipartisan legislation that will make us safer and help our fight against terrorism. There was an opportunity today for the Senate to provide the tools we need to fight terrorism while showing the world the values we cherish and defend, the same values that make us a target. I will not participate in a legislative retreat out of weakness and fear that undercuts everything this nation stands for and that makes us more vulnerable and less secure. Consistent with my oath of office, my conscience, my commitment to the people of Vermont and the nation, I cannot and will not support this bill.

Quote:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...cle_4269.shtml

Friday, October 20, 2006

Law legalizes shameful treatment

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has signed the law that legalizes the administration's shameful treatment of detainees suspected of terrorism.

The same measure also empowers the president to define torture. It's a sad legacy for the U.S. and its already-tarnished world image.

The new law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- establishes a system for trying suspects in military tribunals. It was enacted after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the administration plan for trials by military commissions violated U.S. and international law.

In effect, Bush got all he wanted from a submissive GOP-dominated Congress and a few spineless Democratic lawmakers. The president did not issue his customary signing statement interpreting implementation of the law. <h3>He didn't have to because lawmakers on Capitol Hill had handed him total victory.</h3>

The far-reaching legislation gives Bush the right to decide what constitutes torture.....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
‘National yawn as our rights evaporate’
New law redefines habeas corpus; law professor explains on ‘Countdown’
TRANSCRIPT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
updated 4:49 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct. 18, 2006

OLBERMANN: Leading Democrats view it differently, Senator Ted Kennedy calling this “seriously flawed,” Senator Patrick Leahey saying it’s, quote, “a sad day when the rubber-stamp Congress undercuts our freedoms,” and Senator Russ Feingold adding that “We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation’s history.”

Outside the White House, a handful of individuals protested the law by dressing up as Abu Ghraib abuse victims and terror detainees. Several of them got themselves arrested, but they were apparently quickly released, despite being already dressed for Gitmo.

To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I’m joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting on this board.

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn’t rely on their good motivations.

Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it’s otherworldly.

OLBERMANN: Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation? And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today?

TURLEY: Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over—taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.

And so we may have, in this country, some type of uber-president, some absolute ruler, and it’ll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial.

It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I’m not too sure we’re going to change back anytime soon.

OLBERMANN: And if Justice Kennedy tries to change us back, we can always call him an enemy combatant.

The president reiterated today the United States does not torture. Does this law actually guarantee anything like that?

TURLEY: That’s actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn’t believe it. You know, the United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death.

The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for.

Who are we now? I know who we were then. But when the president said that we don’t torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set.

OLBERMANN: That same individual fell back on the same argument that he’d used about the war in Iraq to sanction this law. Let me play what he said and then ask you a question about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Does he understand the irony of those words when taken out of the context of this particular passage or of what he perceives as the war against terror, and that, in fact, the threat we may be facing is the threat of President George W. Bush?

TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won’t be kind to President Bush.

But frankly, I don’t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.

OLBERMANN: Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I think we’ve done a little bit of what we could have done. I’ll see you at Gitmo. As always, greatest thanks for your time, Jon.

TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/065...f,75320,2.html
Our Own Nuremberg Trials
In 2007, the 'reality show' of the American rule of law, for the world to see.
by Nat Hentoff
December 17th, 2006 9:27 PM

...A Seton Hall Law School report from February 8, which I did not cite last week, by professor Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux and law students at this exemplary school, presents the case against the United States in anticipation of the war-crimes trials at Guantánamo next year. "A Profile of 517 Detainees Through Analysis of Department of Defense Data" provides "a window into the Government's detaining only those the President has called 'the worst of the worst.' " You can now determine for yourself how dangerous the great majority of the defendants are in the forthcoming American Nuremberg trials:

"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban."

The report continues: "The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that are, in fact, not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist . . . A large majority—60 percent—are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. (And members of almost 72 percent of those groups are allowed into the U.S.)"

Remember, these findings are based entirely on Department of Defense records. (Robert Gates can fact-check them.) Also, among "the worst of the worst":

"Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. Eighty-six percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies." No questions asked.

<h3>Remember, too, that in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Congress stripped from all these prisoners any meaningful right to utilize our federal courts, thereby defying our own Supreme Court.</h3>

Co-author Joshua Denbeaux tells me: "The government's own documents proved that the government's claims that the prisoners were the 'worst of the worst' was a false and shameful public relations ploy . . . We hope that our reports will convince Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act and restore federal jurisdiction." If that happens, the prisoners could contest their conditions of confinement, their imprisonment, and their sentences....

samcol · 12-17-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Hal, I'm not sure why you don't like McCain. He seems to be the one Republican that's absolutely AGAINST mistreatment of POW's/enemy combatants. He's probably the Republican I'd vote, just like Obama would be the Democrat.

Have you read the Military Commissions Act that he championed? It is a total abomination to POW's and enemy combatants. It even allows evidence gained through torture to be used in trials. McCain is one of the biggest two-faced liars running in this race. I'd recommend reading some of his legislation and the bills he voted for.

Hard to believe he would vote for something like the Military Commissions Act after what he went through. I'm appalled quite honestly.

~ah yes, thank you Host

Halx · 12-17-2007, 10:59 AM

Hillary is bad. Real bad. She's a lobbyist puppet.

roachboy, what do I want out of a candidate? I want someone who wants to protect the good things in life (internet, free speech, my paycheck) and wants to banish the bad things in life (federal reserve, corporate citizenship, unnecessary war) all the while keeping the economy running and not treating the office like some private club. With all but 3 of the candidates above, I feel like if they get power, we will continue to feel like subservients. I don't feel empowered as a citizen right now because the rules that enable me to make a difference are being destroyed.

ottopilot · 12-17-2007, 11:00 AM

Issmmm · 12-17-2007, 11:10 AM

McCain was the ONE republican that I would have voted for. Seems to me that the parties separate themselves this way, Republicans meet and agree on what the issues are and how to address them. It was them that came up with 'talking points'. Democrats on the other hand have a myriad of issues and solutions, each person has his or her own, it's a freeforall. I tend to agree with one party one certain issues and with the other on others.
McCain was the one Republican who wasn't in lockstep with the others, you know, an independent thinker. He was my right wing guy until he, with conscious effort moved his position more centrist.

Mrs. Clinton. I like her policies for the most part. I worry about her electability because of her supposed reputation as a bitch. I am not as impressed with her experience as the rest of the nation. After all does she really have any more than Obama? When she traveled as First Lady, she hosted and was hosted at parties. What state function did she serve?

I'm kinda buying Obama's fresh face thing. I'm leaning towards voting for him and if I said his Blackness had nothing to do with it, I'd be lying. But it's not a driving force as I didn't vote for Sharpton or Jackson in their run. Yeah the guy is somewhat naive, but before Bush got his seat even his own part called him dummy. As for his experience, he served in State government and is a first term Senator in the Federal government. Mrs Clinton serves as a first term Senator in the Federal government.

Edwards Chief of Staff or something, maybe even VP

Giuliani? Really? He's an embattled ex-mayor

Ideal ticket given whose running:

Obama/Clinton
Obama/Edwards
Clinton/Obama
Clinton/Edwards
in that order

I wanna say tho, I don't think we're gonna elect a Republican this time. I think that Mr Bush fucked up so bad that it just won't happen. That said, we are about to put a Black man or a woman in the most powerful seat in the world. I think we need to stand up and take a bow. This will be the closest thing I've to pride in being American.

robot_parade · 12-17-2007, 11:11 AM

The candidates don't scare me nearly as much as the voters, to be perfectly honest. :-)

On the right, all of the candidates are completely unnacceptable to me. All of them are either pro-torture, pro-war, or both, which is a nonstarter for me. Other dealbreakers on that side are the 'Evilution is a theory' stance, and the various authoritarian/anti personal liberty views. All of the major republican candidates (as far as I'm aware) have been on the wrong side of more than one of those major issues for me. Ron Paul is interesting from a 'maverick' point of view, but he seems to be a 'libertarian' in the sense of repealing OSHA, no minimum wage, and being anti-regulation. Yuck-o.

And the left...well, Hillary is a hard-ass bitch, but that counts in her favor for me - what is it with people smearing democratic women for being 'too masculine', while all the democratic men get smeared for being 'too feminine'? I also don't get the criticisms of Hillary as being 'too political' - she's a politician, for crying out loud! I do agree with the 'too corporate' criticism, and, like pretty much all the other major candidates, she's far too authoritarian for my taste.

Obama - Seems mostly fine to me, though I'd like it if he were more assertive, especially in contrast to the bush/neocon worldview. As fair as I can tell, everything I've heard from him has been targetted at Hillary...which could be because she's the front-runner, or because that's the story the news media wants to tell. I'd vote for him over Clinton.

Edwards - I like him, but we're diving into 'not a chance of getting elected' territory.

Chris Dodd - He seems to match my views most closely, and I'd vote for him because he's fillibustering the horrible telecom amnesty/FISA bill - right in the middle of Iowa caucus season, when it would make the most political sense for him to be in Iowa, trying to drum up support.

pan6467 · 12-17-2007, 11:24 AM

Personally, I was an Edwards man but I'm leaning more towards Biden these days. I've always liked the man and I think he is the smartest, most willing to work to get things done, fairest candidate on either side.

I just will not vote for Hillary or Obama. They scare me far more than any GOP candidate out there. If either gets the nomination (and I look for a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket) I'll vote for whoever the GOP candidate is even if I am strongly opposed to his platforms because Hillary/Obama scare me far worse and could do far more damage.

abaya · 12-17-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

well, Hillary is a hard-ass bitch, but that counts in her favor for me

Yeah, no kidding. I'd much rather have a hard-ass bitch in office than someone who isn't willing to diplomatically cut the balls off the world's assholes. I think the last thing she should be acting like is a "woman" (and jesus, who cares if she has wrinkles?! Anyone taken a look at John McCain's mug lately?! Sick.)

Not saying that I favor her--but I'll vote against the GOP any day.

loquitur · 12-17-2007, 11:45 AM

Hillary is a robot and empty at her core.
Obama is naive and content-free (but VERY charismatic).
Rudy is authoritarian.
Huckabee is a religious nut.
Edwards is a fraud.

etc.
etc.
etc.

The best Dem is Biden. The best Republican is McCain. Neither will be nominated.

host · 12-17-2007, 11:00 PM

Uhhh...Halx, up until now, I've kind of danced around coming right out and telling you this. I am "the evil one", and I am taking over TFP in an attempt to expose and stop the forces of righteousness and all that is American from having "their way" with our government and our sinful, promiscuous, homosexualized culture.

I'll give it back to you when I'm done, but I probably don't have to tell you, it's going to be a long. long, conflict:

Quote:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/311193.shtml

Is the United States an Infant Theocracy?
author: Lawrence Butts
The word theocracy is derived from two Greek words meaning "rule by the deity." Throughout history theocracies have gained control of nations for short periods of time.
Among Christian societies the most notable theocracies were the Papal States under various popes and in the Muslim world a theocracy was established by the prophet Muhammad in Medina in 622. So the religious fundamentalism that gives rise to theocracies is not something new to our culture. No matter what the belief system or religion, theocracies all have similar characteristics.
1. The society and its leaders believe they have a divine right.
2. The divine mandate is interpreted in specific political contexts.
3. Civil rights and a code of conduct are dictated by religious dogma.
4. Individual aspirations are subordinate to the priorities of the state/religion.
5. Domestic and foreign policy is guided by a religious ideology.
6. Leaders are part of a theologically trained elite.
7. Leadership is limited by religious dogma and is rarely skilled in economics.

The framers of the United States Constitution were keenly aware of problems associated with the mixing of church and state. Perhaps we Americans should once again take a look at the vision the framers of the constitution had when they added the 1st Amendment and see if that vision resembles the country we have today?
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

homepage: homepage: http://justiceer.com/

It is time to "pass the baton" from our current "holy warrior" and leader, to Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091201594.html

....Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."....

Consider the opinions of republican 2008 presidential "frontrunner", "pastor Mike" Huckabee's co-author
and christian evangelical "reconstructionist", George Grant:

Quote:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...rer-christian/
.
....Dispensationalists haven't cornered the market on End-Time interpretation. The reconstructionists (also known as dominionists), a smaller but politically influential sect, put the onus for the Lord's return not in the hands of biblical prophesy but in political activism. They believe that Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, and that the first step in readying His arrival is to Christianize America.

"Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ," <h3>writes reconstructionist George Grant.</h3> Christian dominion will be achieved by ending the separation of church and state, replacing U.S. democracy with a theocracy ruled by Old Testament law, and cutting all government social programs, instead turning that work over to Christian churches. Reconstructionists also would abolish government regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, <h3>because they are a distraction from their goal of Christianizing America, and subsequently, the rest of the world. "World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish," says Grant. "We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less." Only when that conquest is complete can the Lord return.</h3>

<h3>Is Ron Paul's platform a christian reconstructionist's "dream"?</h3>

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michel...a_b_20989.html
Posted May 14, 2006

What is Christian nationalism?

I've just published a book called Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, and since it appeared, I've been asked several times what Christian nationalism is, and how it differs from Christian fundamentalism. It's an important concept to understand, because the threat to a pluralistic society does not come from those who simply believe in a very conservative interpretation of Christianity. It comes from those who adhere to a political ideology that posits a Christian right to rule. Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who, in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. <h3>As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"</h3>

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

In the Christian nationalist vision of America, non-believers would be free to worship as they choose, as long as they know their place. When Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress, the Family Research Council issued a furious statement that reveals much about the America they'd like to create:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

The iconography of Christian nationalism conflates the cross and the flag. As I write in Kingdom Coming, it "claims supernatural sanction for its campaign of national renewal and speaks rapturously about vanquishing the millions of Americans who would stand in its way." At one rally at the statehouse in Austin, Texas, a banner pictured a fierce eagle perched upon a bloody cross. For a liberal, such imagery smacks of fascist agitprop. But plenty of deeply committed Christians also object to it as a form of blasphemy. It's important, I think, to separate their faith from the authoritarian impulses of the Christian nationalist movement. Christianity is a religion. <h3>Christian nationalism is a political program, and there is nothing sacred about it....</h3>

<h3>George Grant's blog:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.kingsmeadow.com/2003_10_01_blog_archive.html
Friday, October 3
Still Roaring, Still Running
In the year 325, a conference of pastors and elders was held in the northern Mesopotamian city of Erbil in order to select delegates to attend the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea. The council had been called by the Emperor Constantine to resolve a great Christological debate.....

...That little gathering in Erbil so long ago was the last pastor’s conference in the region for nearly 1700 years—years marked by oppression, persecution, tyranny, and slavery. But two weeks ago all that changed! I was privileged to speak at a gathering of pastors and elders from the harried, marginalized, and sore afflicted churches of Iraq. They came from every imaginable background, ethnic group, denomination, and theological persuasion. Some were part of a remarkable evangelical missionary thrust among the Kurds in the north. Some came from as far south as the border with Kuwait. Some were from historic enclaves of Syrian Orthodox, Nestorian, or Chaldean Catholic communities. Some lived under a warrant of death because they had converted from militant Islam or occultic Khakhai. All were wary, weary, and war-worn.

We were all in grave danger, just being there. As the conference proceeded, <h3>the danger only increased because of what we determined to declare to all who would listen: Jesus Christ is Lord over all things; He is Lord over every Mullah, every Ayatollah, every Imam, and every Mahdi pretender; He is Lord over the whole of the earth—even Iraq! That’s not exactly politically-correct over there right now. But, that’s OK because it just so happens to be true.</h3>

I was in Iraq as a part of a Servant Group International team—a team you graciously and generously supported with both your intercessions and finances. Both investments paid off tremendously. Not only were a number of men and women drawn into life eternal by God’s great mercy, all of the nearly 400 attendees were profoundly encouraged to work for the fulfillment of their “thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in Heaven” petitions.

While the team was in the country, <h3>we had the opportunity to spend time with some of the brave men and women in the armed services currently stationed in that embattled part of the world. We made an effort to encourage the dedicated chaplaincy corps in their heroic and fruitful efforts to proclaim the Good News among the American troops.</h3> We did teacher training at the Classical Christian Schools we’ve established over the past three years. We had the opportunity to witness a glorious baptismal service for the thriving evangelical churches in the north. We had interviews with government officials. And we spent time offering direction and counsel to the leaders of a fledgling Kurdish university that has just reopened its doors after a long season of isolation, uncertainty, and instability.

We often felt we were in the middle of a tense cinematic drama—perhaps one imagined by Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum. It was unlike anything I’ve ever been a part of before. I’ve never seen a situation so desperate. I’ve never witnessed a land so needy. I’ve never known a people so bound by fear, doubt, anger, and hopelessness. Just the kind of situation where the Gospel can have its greatest effect.....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200210202...b_archive.html
Abercrombie and Porn
By George Grant

Your teenage daughter probably learned much of her fashion sense from them. She probably picked up a good bit of her taste for hip hugging Capri pants, skimpy tank tops, slouchy cargo khakis, high riding plaid boxers, form fitting and midriff baring t-shirts, and frayed nylon surf wear from them as well. Now, if the doyens of cool at Abercrombie and Fitch have their way, she’ll also be learning all the joys of group sex, homoeroticism, exhibitionism, pornography, and gang rape from them as well.
Really. I’m not making this up.
The Spring Break 2001 edition of the ultra gauche clothing retailer’s slick quarterly catalog is appropriately entitled “XXX.” It features 275 pages of fresh-faced, clean-cut, and innocent-as-the-dawn teen models cavorting in various stages of dress and undress—mostly the latter—in an exotic Bermuda beach-front setting. It also features profiles of various porn stars, angry lesbians, embittered author-ingrates, and grizzled rock-and-roll kulturistas offering their best advice on how and where to indulge in the joys of privileged promiscuity and pompous perversity.
Oh yes, and it also features the spring line up of logo wear, jeans, t-shirts, polos, cargo shorts, sandals, and ball caps. Nifty, huh?
The flagrant flaunting of moral convention evident in the catalog’s full-frontal nudity, group sex scenes, wild wave raves, and flirtatious drug use is really nothing new in the world of high fashion. Calvin Klein and Benneton have toyed with such mores for years. What is shocking about Abercrombie’s porn is that no one seems to notice. No one seems to care. This mainstay of the American mall culture appears to be able to prance about in its Fellini-like debauchery with total impunity.....

<h3>A list of some of the books George Grant has authored:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.kingsmeadow.com/drgrantphotos.html
....<h3>Kids Who Kill, with Gov. Mike Huckabee 1998</h3>
Y2K: A Novel, with Michael Hyatt 1998
Just Visiting: How Travel Has Enlightened Lives Throughout History, with Karen Grant 1999
Lost Causes: The Romantic Attraction of Defeated Men and Movements, with Karen Grant 1999
Shelf Life: How Books Have Changed the Destinies of Men and Nations, with Karen Grant 1999
Going Somewhere: A Dan and Bea Adventure 1999
Christmas Spirit: The Celebrations of the Season, with Gregory Wilbur 1999
The Pocket Patriot: Citizenship Basics for the New Millennium 2000
Hero Tales: How Common Lives Reveal the Uncommon Genius of America, ed. 2000
The Christian Almanac: Each Day in History, with Gregory Wilbur 2000, 2004
From Bannockburn to Flodden: Tales by Sir Walter Scott, ed. 2001
From Gileskirk to Greyfriars: Tales by Sir Walter Scott, ed. 2001
From Glencoe to Stirling: Tales by Sir Walter Scott, ed. 2001
From Montrose to Culloden: Tales by Sir Walter Scott, ed. 2001
Garden Graces: How Gardening Has Shaped Art, Music, and History, with Karen Grant 2001
The Absolutes: The Indisputable Principles of Civilized Society, with James Robison 2002
<h3>Center of the Storm: Principled Leadership in Times of Crisis, with Katherine Harris 2002</h3>...

Yes...it is THAT Katherine Harris, and you can read about her "christian crusade" in this TFP thread"
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107938">Is Catherine Harris, the Hero in the FLA 2000 Vote Recount, a Mainstream Republican?</a>

Quote:

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/...gave-religion/
Huckabee: U.S. gave up on religion
School shootings were wake-up call, he says
1998/jun/08
By Linda Caillouet

....The shootings were just one more wake-up call to the nation, he said.

"I fear we will turn and hit the snooze button one more time and lose this great republic of ours."

Huckabee said ungiving individuals are responsible for higher taxes.

"I'm often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It's because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we'd been doing what we should have -- giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor -- we now wouldn't be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that's doing ... what we should have been doing all along."

Huckabee also explained why he left pastoring for politics.

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

He compared his entry into politics to "getting inside the dragon's belly," adding, "There's not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what's done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner."

The most basic unit of government is not the city council, quorum court or state legislature, Huckabee said. "It is Mom and Dad raising kids and teaching them respect for authority, others and God."

The nation has descended gradually into crisis, Huckabee said, and repairing the damage needs to be gradual, too. He said the solution is simple: faith in Christ......

....Huckabee concluded his speech by recalling his 10th birthday, when he accepted Christ.

"I went to Vacation Bible School for all the wrong reasons -- I was told they'd give me all the cookies I could eat and all the Kool-Aid I could drink. But that day I got something better than cookies and Kool-Aid. I got the Savior.

"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.".....

Amazon.com: Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence: Mike Huckabee, George Grant: Books

</center>

Quote:

http://www.motherjones.com/washingto...lism-book.html
Mike Huckabee: Playing Both Sides of the Pulpit

Washington Dispatch: The candidate says he wants to unite the country. But in a 1998 book, Huckabee was a fierce culture warrior, equating environmentalism with pornography, homosexuality with necrophilia, and nonbelievers with evildoers.

By David Corn

December 17, 2007

....And Huckabee was obviously trying to come across as a friendly and reasonable fundamentalist who eschewed the politics of division. But not too long ago, Huckabee was quite willing to be divisive. In a 1998 book decrying American culture, Huckabee was no seeker of common ground. He drew stark lines, equating environmentalists with pornographers and homosexuality with pedophilia and necrophilia. He also declared that people who do not believe in God tend to be immoral and to engage in "destructive behavior." He drew a rather harsh picture of an American society starkly split between people of faith and those of a secular bent, with the latter being a direct and immediate threat to the nation.

The book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence, was hardly a call to come together. <h3>Huckabee wrote it with George Grant in response to the March 24, 1998, school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas</h3>. The book was published in early June of that year, its cover featuring a blurry photograph of a young boy pointing a gun at the reader.

In Kids Who Kill, Huckabee argued that school shootings were the product of a society in decline, a decline marked (and caused) by abortion, pornography, media violence, out-of-wedlock sex, divorce, drug use, and, of course, homosexuality. Huckabee and his coauthor bemoaned the "demoralization of America," observing, "Despite all our prosperity, pomp, and power, the vaunted American experiment in liberty seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes." Huckabee, who was governor at the time and a well-known social conservative, blasted away at those whom he held responsible for America's ills, and he took a rather tough stand against government social programs and their advocates. In lamenting the "cultural conflicts" besetting the country, he wrote,

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

Why was he lumping environmentalism with activities he considered sinful? He did not explain further. A few pages later, Huckabee complained,

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

Huckabee did not say what public endorsement of pedophilia or necrophilia he had in mind. But he did seem to be equating homosexuality with both.

Throughout the book, Huckabee warned of going soft on immorality. He slammed those Christians who accept a "misguided version of 'tolerance'" and do not voice outrage at cultural deterioration. Mocking such Christians, he huffed, "We don't want to offend anyone." He denounced what he termed "radical ideological secularism," and he declared, "in the name of civil liberties, cultural diversity, and political correctness, a radical agenda of willy-nilly moral corruption and ethical degeneration has pressed forward." Without identifying any secularists by name, he wailed,

The legal commitment of ideological secularism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture—pornographers, gay activists, abortionists, and other professional liberationists—is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.

This is not the rhetoric of a fellow looking to heal divisions within American society. And Huckabee approvingly quoted a "pastor-patriot" of the early 1800s who said, "Every considerate friend of civil liberty, in order to be consistent with himself, must be the friend of the Bible." That's a rather fundamentalist definition of a civil libertarian.

In Kids Who Kill, Huckabee addressed the decline of manners and civil discourse in American life. He favorably cited the trenchant analysis of the modern media culture that Neil Postman, a liberal critic, presented in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. Huckabee argued that the entertainment industry "is conditioning kids to kill." But he also groused about unnamed "modern government-sponsored social engineers," claiming that "virtually every dollar poured into" government social programs "has only made matters worse." With such a remark, he was planting himself firmly in the government-is-the-enemy camp.

Elsewhere in the book, Huckabee denounced no-fault divorce and claimed that "equality in the workplace has ironically worked against women in innumerable ways." Looking for an expert on this matter, he pointed to a 19th-century author named Peyton Moore, who once noted, "Whenever we attempt to muddy the distinctions—the God-given distinctions—between men and women, it is always the women who ultimately lose." He didn't say that women should stay at home. But he heaped scorn on those who advocate workplace equality for women.

So what to do about a culture that breeds kid killers? Faith is more important than policy or politics, Huckabee argued. The "Judeo-Christian religion," he wrote, states "that faith counteracts the destructive effects of sinful actions and activities." That's what you would expect a religious-minded person to believe. But Huckabee went further and declared that nonbelievers tend to be evildoers:

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).

Huckabee is certainly entitled to his religious beliefs and his own view of human nature. He is free to think that nonbelievers cannot be trusted. But should Huckabee be allowed to play both sides of the pulpit? Kids Who Kill presented a black-and-white perspective: environmentalists, homosexuals, civil libertarians, supporters of social programs, advocates of workplace equality, and nonbelievers are on the dark side and allied with the forces of decline; people who believe in the Bible are the decent Americans. In 1998, Huckabee was claiming a religion-oriented cultural war was under way in the United States and he was happy to be a warrior for his side. Now he says he wants to bring together a "polarized" society. His 1998 book—full of unforgiving rhetoric—indicates that Huckabee is more comfortable creating divides than bridging them.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief.

Fear not, Halx, we were born and raised for this moment, it is our destiny, and victory over the politcal backers of "the Christ", will be ours if we can expose their ridiculousness to the remaining American voters not yet enamored by their unwavering faith and grace!

mixedmedia · 12-18-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

The fresh face of politics

I get so sick of this shit.

It's really no wonder why we are an embarrassment to the rest of the first world.

abaya · 12-18-2007, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I get so sick of this shit.

It's really no wonder why we are an embarrassment to the rest of the first world.

Agreed (see my post above).

Since when does anyone care how wrinkled the candidates are? I have never heard anyone raise criticism about male candidates being ugly... and yet, somehow because this one is a woman, now her looks become part of her qualifications for president? What, she's supposed to look like a porn star before you'll consider voting for her? She has to rate above a "7" at least, on the scale of fuckability? jesus christ...

aberkok · 12-18-2007, 05:49 AM

Yeah... the "fresh face of politics" comment is something I'd expect to see on Fark.com, not here where we have some degree of maturity.

How long will it take for people to realize they're perpetuating the age old sexism of respecting assertiveness in a man and reviling the same assertiveness in a woman?

FoolThemAll · 12-18-2007, 09:28 AM

Giuliani, Huckabee, or McCain... I'm going third party.

Romney I could possibly stomach. Over the top dems, anyway. Stupid statements about freedom requiring religion don't concern me as much as what he'd actually do. (And there's negatives there, too, so he'll be a lesser evil at best.)

Paul would get my vote. Easily. Still not buying the doomsaying about his extremism.

Ustwo · 12-18-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Paul would get my vote. Easily. Still not buying the doomsaying about his extremism.

Its mostly B.S. doomsday, gotta protect the entitlements after all.

Pauls the only anti-war candidate that would get my vote. Not because I think his Iraq policy would be good, but because it would be worth having a bad Iraq policy for what the long term benefits on the domestic side would be.

I don't think he has a chance in hell of course, but I'm hoping his relative popularity becomes a stepping stone for future candidates.

We almost need 4 years of a moonbat like Kucinich just to kick start a true Libertarian movement.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 01:37 PM

I shouldn't be smarter than the candidates. I just shouldn't. We live in a fucked up country if I'm smarter than any of the candidates. I swear half of them are retarded.

If one of them is elected, I hope they continue to fuck up royally just so we get what we deserve for voting for them.

Ustwo · 12-18-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I shouldn't be smarter than the candidates. I just shouldn't. We live in a fucked up country if I'm smarter than any of the candidates. I swear half of them are retarded.

If one of them is elected, I hope they continue to fuck up royally just so we get what we deserve for voting for them.

The implication is that measurable intelligence will somehow generate a working system for average people. I don't think thats necessarily the case. Very intelligence people can come up with some rather nutty unworkable ideas. I've been to mensa meetings, I do not want any of those people running the country, some I wouldn't want running a 7/11.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The implication is that measurable intelligence will somehow generate a working system for average people. I don't think thats necessarily the case. Very intelligence people can come up with some rather nutty unworkable ideas. I've been to mensa meetings, I do not want any of those people running the country, some I wouldn't want running a 7/11.

Did you just say "Very intelligence people"? I think that's ironic, but I have to look it up.

I consider intelligence to be one of several paramount traits in a good leader, but I cannot imagine a good leader without intelligence. I hope that makes it more clear. Yes, many of the candidates are morally bankrupt, naive, incapable of leading people, etc., but I figure that those are harder to establish.

ottopilot · 12-18-2007, 01:58 PM

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 02:00 PM

Your post belonged in humor, if anywhere, otto. It didn't and doesn't belong in Politics.

Halx · 12-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Just consider it an apology and accept it.

Ustwo, it IS about intelligence. A leader has to be smarter than the people. He has to see things people don't see. We've seen how it goes with a leader who is average. However, it takes a certain kind of smarts to realize that things need to run through the discourse before they are decided.

The_Jazz · 12-18-2007, 02:09 PM

Jimmy Carter is probably the smartest of the post WWII presidents. He is, after all, a nuclear scientist.

Obviously, Clinton is way up there on the smart-o-meter, but I think that it was his personal charisma that made him a great leader. He went through impeachment hearings and still came out beloved in many circles.

Reagan was certainly not booksmart, but again, the charisma made him what he was.

We need leaders who stand up and lead, even when they're wrong. It seems to me that most of the candidates are poll-followers.

abaya · 12-18-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

FYI regarding a previous post of mine.

Thanks for that one, ottopilot. Actually, it would have been great to have all the photos of the rotting old candidates up there, for equal opportunity bashing.

The_Jazz · 12-18-2007, 02:13 PM

will, perhaps you want to read this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=129125

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Your post belonged in humor, if anywhere, otto. It didn't and doesn't belong in Politics.

Yeah, I think that applies here, too.

Ustwo · 12-18-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Did you just say "Very intelligence people"? I think that's ironic, but I have to look it up.

Yes I did, damn my horrible typo and thank you for noticing, if I ever need a secretary I'll be sure to give you a call.

Quote:

I consider intelligence to be one of several paramount traits in a good leader, but I cannot imagine a good leader without intelligence. I hope that makes it more clear. Yes, many of the candidates are morally bankrupt, naive, incapable of leading people, etc., but I figure that those are harder to establish.

Honestly I'm not so sure. I think being able to understand, and handle people is perhaps more important. Based on pure intelligence there has never been a president smarter than me, but that doesn't mean I think I'd have done a better job than any of them. Its easy to sit here and think how much better they should have been, but its more akin to the guy who thinks the head coach is an idiot. We don't know all the facts, all the issues, all the handling that was done.

Its pretty easy to be arrogant when you are not the one making the decisions.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

We need leaders who stand up and lead, even when they're wrong.

Whoa, how did I miss this?

We've had a leader who continues to lead despite being wrong. What we need is a man or woman who can admit to mistakes and try to correct them. That, above all things, is the most important trait of a leader: maturity and humility to correct their mistakes. I consider this trait the cornerstone to my own leadership style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Honestly I'm not so sure. I think being able to understand, and handle people is perhaps more important. Based on pure intelligence there has never been a president smarter than me, but that doesn't mean I think I'd have done a better job than any of them. Its easy to sit here and think how much better they should have been, but its more akin to the guy who thinks the head coach is an idiot. We don't know all the facts, all the issues, all the handling that was done.

Its pretty easy to be arrogant when you are not the one making the decisions.

I'm not talking about intelligence in a vaccum. Let my put it in simpler terms. Let's say there are three candidates. A has leadership experience, a strong platform, but has an IQ that barely breaks 110. B. has leadership experience, a strong platform, but has an IQ that barely breaks 120. C. has leadership, experience, a strong platform, and is absolutely brilliant. Easily a 160 IQ. Nobel Prize in economics.

Who do you vote for?

mixedmedia · 12-18-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

FYI regarding a previous post of mine.

Wow, thanks! That was refreshing.

12-17-2007, 07:44 AM	#1 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I'm afraid of the candidates :( Hillary Clinton? She's owned by corporations. Her fake personality makes me cry a little. Barack Obama? He's green. He ignores the things that mean the most to me. He focuses on talking points, not real points of change. Rudy Guiliani? You pronounce his name "Stooge" as in, stooge to the "neo-con" agenda. I can totally see my future going up in smoke if this guy gains any power. What a fraud. Mike Huckabee? Dear god no! An unaccredited religious nutball with a history of pardoning criminals because they "found Jesus." I fear for my personal rights with this guy anywhere near power. Mitt Romney? Shit, another religious creep. Having dated a Mormon and having learned as much as I can about the KIND of people who get involved with it, I am righteously opposed to this guy as well. Its bad enough that these candidates bank on their religious beliefs. Its worse when they insinuate that freedom requires religion. What the fuck. John McCain? Aside form the fact that his face scares me, he is creepy in many more ways. Like the fact that he is responsible for the cover-up of all POW information since Vietnam. Like the fact that he is 100% into this fucked up war. Like the fact that he could die at any moment. An even more corrupt VP could take office at any moment. Fred Thompson? Another religious freak. I'm up to my ears in religious freaks. I've had enough of this shit running my country because it's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE! Dennis Kucinich? He has a good platform, but I fear for my MONEY if he gets power. Shit, who is going to pay for all this free shit he wants to give away? I cant make use of any of it, but I'll probably have to give up 20% more of my paycheck just so all my ghetto neighbors live better. Ron Paul? I'll probably end up voting for this guy because he is the lesser of all evils. He shows up like an angel on the charts that list lobbyist contributions, but that's because he's bringing up the rear. His policy is messianic, and its helped me realize how conservative I am. However, its too conservative, to the point where it allows for too many wild cards to turn over the wrong way. Leave industries to self-regulation? Ouch. What happened to middle of the road politics? Why is Bill Clinton's wife EVIL? No wonder he was gettin' head from Monica. What's wrong with liberalism? Why is everyone so fucking afraid of it? I'm scared! __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

12-17-2007, 08:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	No one electable scares me as much as just disappoints me. Somethings not right when a nation with so many great people have choices like this. I know this get lamented every election, but this one seems worse than most. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-17-2007, 08:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Liberalism is the new communism. The same arguments that were made 20-50 years ago about communists are being made now about liberals. Personally, of the frontrunners I like Obama a lot (full disclosure: I'd vote for Richardson over Obama, but he's not going to get the numbers he needs). I met Obama when he was a state senator, and he's a very likeable, very smart guy. When you talk about experience, what do you mean? He's been in government for a while, although not at the national level. Hal, I'm not sure why you don't like McCain. He seems to be the one Republican that's absolutely AGAINST mistreatment of POW's/enemy combatants. He's probably the Republican I'd vote, just like Obama would be the Democrat. I think that the main problem here is that we all look back at past presidencies with rose-colored glasses. You might even find a Republican or two admitting that the Clinton years might not have been so bad, just like you'll find Democrats admitting that Reagan wasn't evil personified. Right now, we're trying to guess who the best man for the job is. In my opinion, we've guess wrong the last two times, but that's me. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-17-2007, 08:41 AM	#4 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Jazz, McCain is disgusting with his policies and intentions. He's a "good ol' boy" when it comes to this war. Those who stand to profit from it are all behind him. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

12-17-2007, 08:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Oh, I agree with that completely. My point was more about the POW question. On that topic, at least, he seems pretty much beyond reproach. He's been very consistent about trying to get the Bush Administration to own up to practicing torture and to stop. Beyond that, he's an absolute hawk, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows much about his biography (former fighter pilot and service academy grad). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-17-2007, 09:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what do folk want from a presidential candidate? what are you looking for? this seems a curiously royalist thread, like we are surveying the pretenders to the throne who might follow the aging and decrepit present king and are trying to figure out which abstraction, which "personality" fits best with--well what? at this point, most of the "coverage" of the horse race between pretenders to the throne seems to be about money: candidate x will say something, funding streams will react in directions on, off, neutral....it's like some bizarre little stock market--we watch the relative prices of obama vs. guilani go up and down as if this was rational, and because there is money being streamed into politics, it is a market and so is necessary and so is rational. on the other hand, we are little royalists in a way---j.g. ballard was right in "the secret history of world war 3" that television makes us all ultra-royalist in that we collapse the political onto the person of the el jeffe. very strange business, all this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-17-2007, 10:01 AM	#10 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I have no fear of any of the major Democratic candidates, but I am highly partisan My preference would be for a Dodd/Richardson ticket, but I believe Obama is the best candidate in either party of being the type of conciliator that could begin to bridge the growing divide betwen left and right or red amd blue. Hilary has been vilified by the right for 15 years to the point where her reputation cannot be salvaged, although she is probably one of the best and brightest policy wonks among all the candidates. Religious candidates scare me, particularly Huckabee with his background in the baptist ministry. (I am not against Baptist, but I dont want policy decisions made on a fundamentalist or strict interpretation of those or any religous beliefs and/or the Bible) Most here know that I dont like extremist on either end (Paul/Kucinich) or believe the country is ready and willing to support such candidates. What scares me most is not the WHO...its the HOW MUCH. To date, the presidential candidates have raised and are expected to spend over $400 million combined in the primaries alone. The nominees are likely to raise and spend $500 million each before the election in November...our first BILLION DOLLAR election. That is obscene and needs to be addressed. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-17-2007 at 10:07 AM..

12-17-2007, 10:08 AM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ustwo....thanks for your insight Funny how you are so critical of the Bush bashers, but are unwilling to recognize or acknowlege that it exists on both sides. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-17-2007 at 10:12 AM..

12-17-2007, 10:59 AM	#16 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Hillary is bad. Real bad. She's a lobbyist puppet. roachboy, what do I want out of a candidate? I want someone who wants to protect the good things in life (internet, free speech, my paycheck) and wants to banish the bad things in life (federal reserve, corporate citizenship, unnecessary war) all the while keeping the economy running and not treating the office like some private club. With all but 3 of the candidates above, I feel like if they get power, we will continue to feel like subservients. I don't feel empowered as a citizen right now because the rules that enable me to make a difference are being destroyed. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

12-17-2007, 11:00 AM	#17 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:00 PM..

12-17-2007, 11:10 AM	#18 (permalink)
Issmmm Upright	McCain was the ONE republican that I would have voted for. Seems to me that the parties separate themselves this way, Republicans meet and agree on what the issues are and how to address them. It was them that came up with 'talking points'. Democrats on the other hand have a myriad of issues and solutions, each person has his or her own, it's a freeforall. I tend to agree with one party one certain issues and with the other on others. McCain was the one Republican who wasn't in lockstep with the others, you know, an independent thinker. He was my right wing guy until he, with conscious effort moved his position more centrist. Mrs. Clinton. I like her policies for the most part. I worry about her electability because of her supposed reputation as a bitch. I am not as impressed with her experience as the rest of the nation. After all does she really have any more than Obama? When she traveled as First Lady, she hosted and was hosted at parties. What state function did she serve? I'm kinda buying Obama's fresh face thing. I'm leaning towards voting for him and if I said his Blackness had nothing to do with it, I'd be lying. But it's not a driving force as I didn't vote for Sharpton or Jackson in their run. Yeah the guy is somewhat naive, but before Bush got his seat even his own part called him dummy. As for his experience, he served in State government and is a first term Senator in the Federal government. Mrs Clinton serves as a first term Senator in the Federal government. Edwards Chief of Staff or something, maybe even VP Giuliani? Really? He's an embattled ex-mayor Ideal ticket given whose running: Obama/Clinton Obama/Edwards Clinton/Obama Clinton/Edwards in that order I wanna say tho, I don't think we're gonna elect a Republican this time. I think that Mr Bush fucked up so bad that it just won't happen. That said, we are about to put a Black man or a woman in the most powerful seat in the world. I think we need to stand up and take a bow. This will be the closest thing I've to pride in being American.

12-17-2007, 11:11 AM	#19 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	The candidates don't scare me nearly as much as the voters, to be perfectly honest. :-) On the right, all of the candidates are completely unnacceptable to me. All of them are either pro-torture, pro-war, or both, which is a nonstarter for me. Other dealbreakers on that side are the 'Evilution is a theory' stance, and the various authoritarian/anti personal liberty views. All of the major republican candidates (as far as I'm aware) have been on the wrong side of more than one of those major issues for me. Ron Paul is interesting from a 'maverick' point of view, but he seems to be a 'libertarian' in the sense of repealing OSHA, no minimum wage, and being anti-regulation. Yuck-o. And the left...well, Hillary is a hard-ass bitch, but that counts in her favor for me - what is it with people smearing democratic women for being 'too masculine', while all the democratic men get smeared for being 'too feminine'? I also don't get the criticisms of Hillary as being 'too political' - she's a politician, for crying out loud! I do agree with the 'too corporate' criticism, and, like pretty much all the other major candidates, she's far too authoritarian for my taste. Obama - Seems mostly fine to me, though I'd like it if he were more assertive, especially in contrast to the bush/neocon worldview. As fair as I can tell, everything I've heard from him has been targetted at Hillary...which could be because she's the front-runner, or because that's the story the news media wants to tell. I'd vote for him over Clinton. Edwards - I like him, but we're diving into 'not a chance of getting elected' territory. Chris Dodd - He seems to match my views most closely, and I'd vote for him because he's fillibustering the horrible telecom amnesty/FISA bill - right in the middle of Iowa caucus season, when it would make the most political sense for him to be in Iowa, trying to drum up support.

12-17-2007, 11:24 AM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Personally, I was an Edwards man but I'm leaning more towards Biden these days. I've always liked the man and I think he is the smartest, most willing to work to get things done, fairest candidate on either side. I just will not vote for Hillary or Obama. They scare me far more than any GOP candidate out there. If either gets the nomination (and I look for a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket) I'll vote for whoever the GOP candidate is even if I am strongly opposed to his platforms because Hillary/Obama scare me far worse and could do far more damage. __________________ 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?"

12-17-2007, 11:45 AM	#22 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Hillary is a robot and empty at her core. Obama is naive and content-free (but VERY charismatic). Rudy is authoritarian. Huckabee is a religious nut. Edwards is a fraud. etc. etc. etc. The best Dem is Biden. The best Republican is McCain. Neither will be nominated.

12-18-2007, 05:49 AM	#26 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	Yeah... the "fresh face of politics" comment is something I'd expect to see on Fark.com, not here where we have some degree of maturity. How long will it take for people to realize they're perpetuating the age old sexism of respecting assertiveness in a man and reviling the same assertiveness in a woman? __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries." Last edited by aberkok; 12-18-2007 at 05:51 AM..

12-18-2007, 09:28 AM	#27 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Giuliani, Huckabee, or McCain... I'm going third party. Romney I could possibly stomach. Over the top dems, anyway. Stupid statements about freedom requiring religion don't concern me as much as what he'd actually do. (And there's negatives there, too, so he'll be a lesser evil at best.) Paul would get my vote. Easily. Still not buying the doomsaying about his extremism. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

12-18-2007, 01:37 PM	#29 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I shouldn't be smarter than the candidates. I just shouldn't. We live in a fucked up country if I'm smarter than any of the candidates. I swear half of them are retarded. If one of them is elected, I hope they continue to fuck up royally just so we get what we deserve for voting for them.

12-18-2007, 01:58 PM	#32 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 11:47 AM..

12-18-2007, 02:00 PM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Your post belonged in humor, if anywhere, otto. It didn't and doesn't belong in Politics.

12-18-2007, 02:05 PM	#34 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Just consider it an apology and accept it. Ustwo, it IS about intelligence. A leader has to be smarter than the people. He has to see things people don't see. We've seen how it goes with a leader who is average. However, it takes a certain kind of smarts to realize that things need to run through the discourse before they are decided. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

12-18-2007, 02:09 PM	#35 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Jimmy Carter is probably the smartest of the post WWII presidents. He is, after all, a nuclear scientist. Obviously, Clinton is way up there on the smart-o-meter, but I think that it was his personal charisma that made him a great leader. He went through impeachment hearings and still came out beloved in many circles. Reagan was certainly not booksmart, but again, the charisma made him what he was. We need leaders who stand up and lead, even when they're wrong. It seems to me that most of the candidates are poll-followers. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo