|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Obama, for instance, is in favor of the death penalty. He may espouse some liberal views, but he is not a liberal in the sense usually reserved for the word.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Izzybee
Shipmate
# 10931
|
Posted
Very interesting, then, that Obama is viewed locally (in my workplace especially) as a dangerous liberal. It's just scary, it really is. Not only that, but I've had three colleagues tell me that they're not voting for "That Oba-whatever guy" because he's a radical Muslim...
I hope to be able to vote in my first ever presidential election this November (having become a US citizen two years ago), but I've sworn I'm not voting for a republican. I've also sworn I'm not voting for Hillary. I may be writing in "Spongebob squarepants" if Obama doesn't win the Democratic nomination. I wanted Mike Gravel, but obviously noone else did ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Hate filled bitch musings...
Posts: 1336 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agrgurich
Shipmate
# 5724
|
Posted
Unless you assume that no one to the right of Leon Trotsky can be a liberal, then Obama is a liberal. He would probably say, "Let's not talk about labels." or some such bunk.
--------------------
Life is a comedy to those who think & a tragedy to those who feel.-Horace Walpole
AJG
Posts: 4478 | From: Michigan's Copper Country | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It shows how far the country has moved to the right that you can call Obama a liberal with a straight face. He's not a liberal. Kucinich is a liberal.
No Kucinich is a commie. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
More seriously, I think the Political Compass is looking at it from a more global view as opposed to a regional American view. Even on their chart, he's on the liberal side fo the scale easily. If one looks at the simple description/votiong record I provided he is pro-choice, pro-welfare, pro-unions, pro-gays, anti-corporations, pro-drugs, etc. etc.
Not saying I disagree with him on a number of those issues there btw, but he IS a liberal by any American standard.
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Obama, for instance, is in favor of the death penalty. He may espouse some liberal views, but he is not a liberal in the sense usually reserved for the word.
Um, not exactly:
quote:
Obama's most significant contribution has been his legislative battles against the death penalty, and against in the criminal justice system. In Illinois, it's been a series of shocking exonerations of innocent people who are on death row. He was involved very intimately in drafting and passing legislation that requires the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. And he also was one of the co-sponsors of this very comprehensive reform or the death penalty system in Illinois, which many people say may trigger the retreat on the death penalty in many other states.
Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
I never know what people mean when they say 'liberal' anymore; the word seems to have about ten separate meanings and those meanings vary depending on who is using the word. In my understanding, Trotsky was not a liberal and liberal isn't really on the left vs right dimension. Is Obama liberal?..well perhaps 'liberalish', but Ron Paul is more liberal.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Again, only from a very rightish perspective does Obama appear liberal.
Or, only from a left-wing view would Obama not be consdiered liberal.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Um, not exactly:
His memoir indicates he is in favor of the use of the death penalty for the community to "express the full measure of its outrage" in certain cases. He is in favor of its use but that it should be fairly applied. Fair application is mom and apple pie and ought to be thoroughly uncontroversial. In Obama's words "At a minimum, we should agree that innocent people should not be put to death by the state." This is hardly the epitome of liberal values.
The changes you site are merely procedural - taping of confessions for God's sake. The reforms in Illinois clearly did not eliminate the death penalty in Illinois following their enactment in 2003. In fact, the current Supreme Court has done more to end the death penalty than Obama has.
Background coverage here.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Again, only from a very rightish perspective does Obama appear liberal.
Or, only from a left-wing view would Obama not be consdiered liberal.
My score is of course toward the bottom left corner of the bottom left quadrant on that political compass. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I just have to quickly say I'm seeing much better and more interesting analysis on this thread than I'm seeing in the media...
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
Now something we might agree on. I almost wish that the Republican and Democratic parties would disband and everyone could reform into a conservative and liberal party. It would make more sense. But then since when does politics make sense?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
His memoir indicates he is in favor of the use of the death penalty for the community to "express the full measure of its outrage" in certain cases. He is in favor of its use but that it should be fairly applied.[/URL]
Now that right there is a good reason *not* to execute someone, IMHO.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I would agree, but Senator Obama seems to consider a fair approach to the death penalty to be within the realm of the possible.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My score is of course toward the bottom left corner of the bottom left quadrant on that political compass.
Paint us shocked.
quote:
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
FWIW, when I apply the label liberal and conservative I generally mean it in the broader (American) senses of the term (as I understand it). I have bitched long and hard about how the parties are starting to look alike. Clinton passes welfare reform, Bush passes socialista Medicare boondoggle from hell. Etc.
The terms liberal and conservative do not automatically mean democrat and republican. But then there ARE liberal democrats like Obama, and Conservative Republicans like Rush Limbaugh. That they deviate from the liberal line by one or even two things such as Capital Punishment (and I am still skeptical as to whether Obama isn't a sheep in wolf's clothing there) deosn't mean they aren't described as a liberal.
Pedants will quibble over anything.
Someone that is pro-choice, pro-union, pro-social spending, etc. etc. is a LIBERAL.
If they are Pro-life, anti-union, anti-welfare, pro-military spending, etc. they are CONSERVATIVE.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This link will show how the meanings of these words have become blurred by people with more concern for politics than for words.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
Now something we might agree on. I almost wish that the Republican and Democratic parties would disband and everyone could reform into a conservative and liberal party. It would make more sense. But then since when does politics make sense?
or a truly social democratic alternative as in Western Europe.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Well, back on track ...
Guiliani will come in third or fourth in Florida, where he had concentrated his campaign.
He is going to California tomorrow but is rumored to be preparing to bow out and endorse McCain.
So it looks like a three-person race on the R side (with McCain wearing the "Frontrunner" mantle again).
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
Now something we might agree on. I almost wish that the Republican and Democratic parties would disband and everyone could reform into a conservative and liberal party. It would make more sense. But then since when does politics make sense?
or a truly social democratic alternative as in Western Europe.
Social democracy for whom, by whom?
The chance of a black man being elected to the highest position in the land in the US is probably much higher then in Western Europe.
I'm not saying Canada is much better, BTW. But, at least the girls in our ghettoes aren't asked to take off their hijabs in school.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There's a good piece in today's LA Times that discusses how increasingly meaningless it is to apply the term "right" to the Republicans and "left" to the Democrats.
Now something we might agree on. I almost wish that the Republican and Democratic parties would disband and everyone could reform into a conservative and liberal party. It would make more sense. But then since when does politics make sense?
or a truly social democratic alternative as in Western Europe.
Social democracy for whom, by whom?
I'm not saying Canada is much better, BTW. But, at least the girls in our ghettoes aren't asked to take off their hijabs in school.
well, that was random
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Um, yeah, it was.
At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped for junior hosting, could all y'all please get your own thread if you don't want to talk about the US election?
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Um, yeah, it was.
At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped for junior hosting, could all y'all please get your own thread if you don't want to talk about the US election?
Charlotte
consider them rapped.
What do you think of Hillary's attempt to gain momentum by her strange performance in Florida?
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It seems desperate. They agreed not to campaign there. There were not delegates at stake. I can't imagine the Democrats allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to vote for the nomination. It would like the Clinton machine had the fix in from the start. It would leave Hillary very vulnerable in a general election especially against John McCain.
She had to do something to slow Obama's momentum gained from South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsement before February 5. This is what she did. Its basicly like calling a time-out in basketball when the other team is on a 10-0 run. To me, its just a cheesy political trick. Then, people tend to fall for the Clinton's political tricks quite often. Again, I don't know why.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
What do you think of Hillary's attempt to gain momentum by her strange performance in Florida?
I dislike her more with every passing move. If she ends up being the Democratic nominee, I'll need a vise to hold my nose and vote for her. All the Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida. If she can't be trusted on this, what can she be trusted on?
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
So it looks like a three-person race on the R side (with McCain wearing the "Frontrunner" mantle again).
I think it's just two-way now. Giuliani coming out to the Reagan Library here in SoCal to bow out of the race and throw his support to McCain, Ron Paul is going nowhere very fast, and Huckabee is flat broke so can't campaign effectively in what is now pretty much a national race.
Several interesting things coming out of Florida, I think:
1. More voters who say their big issue is the economy went for McCain than for Romney, though the economy is supposed to be Romney's issue, him being the businessman and all.
2. McCain won in a closed primary, which shows he might have enough of the Republican base behind him to win the whole she-bang.
3. Romney outspent McCain 10-1.
Something we failed to note about the significance of Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is the financial aspect -- Kennedy can help bring in money, and except for Romney all the campaigns are desperate for money right now.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
It seems desperate. They agreed not to campaign there. There were not delegates at stake. I can't imagine the Democrats allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to vote for the nomination. It would like the Clinton machine had the fix in from the start. It would leave Hillary very vulnerable in a general election especially against John McCain.
She had to do something to slow Obama's momentum gained from South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsement before February 5. This is what she did. Its basicly like calling a time-out in basketball when the other team is on a 10-0 run. To me, its just a cheesy political trick. Then, people tend to fall for the Clinton's political tricks quite often. Again, I don't know why.
Do you really have any doubt that Hillary will now try to get Florida and Michigan delegates to be able to vote in the DNC nomination?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
What do you think of Hillary's attempt to gain momentum by her strange performance in Florida?
I dislike her more with every passing move. If she ends up being the Democratic nominee, I'll need a vise to hold my nose and vote for her. All the Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida. If she can't be trusted on this, what can she be trusted on?
Yes, the entire Florida thing is disgraceful. It started out bad and has only gotten worse.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
So it looks like a three-person race on the R side (with McCain wearing the "Frontrunner" mantle again).
I think it's just two-way now. Giuliani coming out to the Reagan Library here in SoCal to bow out of the race and throw his support to McCain, Ron Paul is going nowhere very fast, and Huckabee is flat broke so can't campaign effectively in what is now pretty much a national race.
Yeah, I almost said two, but I think Huckabee will at least hold out till Super-Duper Tuesday. Ron Paul has been a fringe candidate all along regardless of what the Paulistas say.
His position is much like Edwards in the Dem primary - he doesn't have much of a chance at this point but he is trying to be influential.
But at this point I think ole Mitt is miles from home with darkness falling himself. Mind you, McCain has blown "frontrunner" once before in this race, but I think he learned his lesson.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Rudy is toast, and it looks like John Edwards is bowing out as well. I'm guessing most of his supporters would throw their weight behind Barack Obama, but we'll see. He hasn't yet announced who he will endorse.
Please God, don't force me to choose between McCain and Hillary in November. I like McCain personally but usually disagree with his politics; I tend to agree with Hillary's stated positions, but I think she's a conniving weasel with zero credibility.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Please God, don't force me to choose between McCain and Hillary in November. I like McCain personally but usually disagree with his politics; I tend to agree with Hillary's stated positions, but I think she's a conniving weasel with zero credibility.
Amen. Again I say, "Amen."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Please God, don't force me to choose between McCain and Hillary in November. I like McCain personally but usually disagree with his politics; I tend to agree with Hillary's stated positions, but I think she's a conniving weasel with zero credibility.
Egads, I fear I'd have to go with the one with some integrity, but I'd rather vote for Obama, though I think McCain would slaughter him...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
although it has become a cliche, I think nominating Hillary would be the greatest gift to the Republicans since Walter Mondale.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
The Dems have certainly perfected the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
[ 30. January 2008, 13:50: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...If she can't be trusted on this, what can she be trusted on? ...
Er, nothing? Except that she'll do anything, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, to regain power.
As for the GOP, McCain is riding high. Romney may stay in and pull an upset. Who knows.
But wouldn't a McCain presidency just be a continuation of W's presidency? I mean they agree (maybe not 100%) on all major issues: the war, campaign finance, immigration. And McCain agrees with Hillary on most domestic issues. So President McCain = W's third term. And a choice between Hillary and McCain is no choice at all on domestic matters.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Not quite. McCain believes something needs to be done about global warming. While 'something' is pretty broad territory, it is quite different than W's 'nothing'. He's been criticized by the right on other issues as well - abortion, perhaps, although his stance has also been described as unclear.
I'm not bothered about Hilary talking about 'winning' in Florida or Michigan. It's just politics to talk about how the vote went there; they did vote for her. Thinking people will realize that it is meaningless talk as the campaign tactics would have been very different if these delegates were known to count, but thinking doesn't always figure highly in most political claims anyway.
However, if the campaign actually tries to take some action to get those delegates seated, then this will definitely rank as one of the slimiest moves of this election.
I couldn't vote for McCain, but I may end up voting for some no-chance socialist rather than vote for Clinton.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Well, my November prediction about Giuliani getting the nomination bites the dust. Now I'm guessing McCain (remember when his campaign was considered dead in the water? - gotta give him credit) and for grits and shins still predict Huckabee as veep.
I just can't write Clinton off even though Obama has been surprisingly effective. Initially I thought Clinton would pick Obama as veep but I can't figure out how that would capture the necessary southern support.
So if it's Hillary who does she choose?
If it's Obama who does he choose?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
McCain was pretty conciliatory to the Romney camp in his victory speech. I wouldn't be surprised if he picks the number two vote getter as veep.
The one thing for sure is there will be no Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Not sure who would want to run with Hilary, but folks might look to Bill Richardson, a westerner with Hispanic roots and some skill in foreign policy. Or maybe some governor somewhere. I could see Hilary picking Joe Lieberman, but he probably wouldn't want it.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
And more changes!
I just woke up and the Nipper is full of news that Edwards is planning his own bow-out message.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
So if it's Hillary who does she choose?
Probably doesn't matter, since whoever she picks would be playing second fiddle to Bill. It's already clear that Billary is running as a package deal, and I don't think they'd have a chance against McCain in November.
quote:
If it's Obama who does he choose?
I'd personally love to see Mike Bloomberg as Obama's VP pick. I think they'd perfectly compliment each other's strengths, the ticket would bring in a lot of pragmatic-minded independent voters, and it reinforce Obama's message of being an agent of change.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Not to interrupt the very interesting question of running mates, but after Florida is Huckabee done? If not, can he possibly survive Super Tuesday?
If not, where does this leave the conservative Evangelical vote?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Not to interrupt the very interesting question of running mates, but after Florida is Huckabee done? If not, can he possibly survive Super Tuesday?
If not, where does this leave the conservative Evangelical vote?
It appears he will stick around for at least as long as Romney in order to split opposition to McCain.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Not to interrupt the very interesting question of running mates, but after Florida is Huckabee done? If not, can he possibly survive Super Tuesday?
If not, where does this leave the conservative Evangelical vote?
It appears he will stick around for at least as long as Romney in order to split opposition to McCain.
In my extended family (which, shamefully, includes some R****licans), the contest is between supporting Huckabee and McCain. If that is at all representative. Huckabee is drawing more folks from McCain than Romney.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
LA Times is reporting that Guiliani lost due to his unconventional tactics of running hard in Florida only. Duh.
If the dumbass didn't see that was a stupid way to run a campaign, I can't imagine how numbnuttedly stupid his presidency would have been. What a maroon.
This discussion of nominating the other contenders as Veeps (eg Clinton and Obama as veep or McCain/Huckabee) I find interesting. Has any presidential candidate in recent history grabbed one of his other contenders as a veep? I can't recall it happening in my lifetime....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
Reagan and Bush in 1980?
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well done. Interesting.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Here, and as I understand it in the UK, the two most powerful politicians in a party are usually leader and deputy leader, unless No.2 is actively plotting against No.1 (or in Gordon Brown's case, number 11 against number 10.) It seems odd that you wouldn't nominate the two best contenders as President and VP. Maybe it is hard to go from attacking someone publically to claiming that you always admired them and are happy have them as your boss/second in command. Though I'm sure Hilary could manage the about-face easily enough.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Kerry chose Edwards last time around.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
So, with the exit of Giuliani, another early-acclaimed "front runner" bites the dust. This actually seems to happen more often than not. Early ripe, early rot.
But speaking of withdrawing from the race, ot takes a much better political strategist than I to explain why Edwards would do so only a week away from "Super Tuesday," especially when delegates are chosen on a proportional basis (as the Democrats do) rather than winner-take-all (as the Republicans do)-- and especially if he quits without endorsing anyone. Why not wait another week and pick up a few more delegates to make a deal with?
It seems to me that Edwards, if he were to get the nomination, would be the most electable of the Democratic candidates-- first of all in being a southerner, which seems to be de rigeur these days.
I think that McCain may have a bit of a skeleton in his closet in his inscrutable hostility to government concern for his fellow prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action in the Vietnam era. Just bringing the subject up tended to make him go ballistic. Is he hiding something? If he is the Republican nominee, the Democratic nominee should hold his feet to the fire over this issue in debate. He plays up his war hero status, so it's hardly a dead letter. If he loses his cool over the question today as much as he used to, so much the better-- the country should see it.
McCain seems to be a feisty rebel in some ways, and I like that. But he's no moderate. The New York Times endorses him for the Republican ticket tepidly, as the best of a bad lot. On the Democratic side, the NYT endorses Hillary for her qualifications and the fact (so they say) that she has kept her campaign promises to the people of New York State. Might this be some counterweight for Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Obama? A lot of Democrats respect the NYT.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Here, and as I understand it in the UK, the two most powerful politicians in a party are usually leader and deputy leader, unless No.2 is actively plotting against No.1 (or in Gordon Brown's case, number 11 against number 10.)
I'd say this is often not the case in the UK. The Labour Party deputy leader is elected separately and is not chosen by the leader. They are sometimes given the title deputy Prime Minister (which is at the PM's discretion) when Labour is in office. I think they are usually "influential" (and sometimes not even that) rather than powerful figures. Of the ones I can think of since the war, Herbert Morrison and Roy Jenkins are the only ones who had real power bases in the Labour Party. The "big beasts" prefer a prominent post like Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, etc. Rather like prefering to be Sec of State in the US rather than VP.
The Tories have no formal deputy leadership post and so it is usually an honoury title (along with deputy PM if in office) given to an old duffers like Willie Whitelaw or Michael Heseltine. Someone to have a word with "the chaps" in times of crisis and offer sage words of advice, but not serious rivals for the leadership. Again, the big beasts demand departments to run
The fact that the only deputy leader who went on to be leader of either party was Michael Foot says it all. Very different from the US were VPs usually go on to get the presidency, or at least the nomination. Being VP in the US can make you a powerful party figure, even if you weren't before, although Dan Quayle would buck that trend. Deputy in the UK is the kiss of death.
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
On the Democratic side, the NYT endorses Hillary for her qualifications and the fact (so they say) that she has kept her campaign promises to the people of New York State. Might this be some counterweight for Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Obama? A lot of Democrats respect the NYT.
Can you provide a link? The NYT's coverage has been driving me up the wall because of its pro-Hillary slant, but I hadn't seen an actual endorsement yet.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
NY Times: Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton
I read the Times everyday and generally respect its editorial page, but I think they dropped the ball on this one.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
... On the Democratic side, the NYT endorses Hillary for her qualifications and the fact (so they say) that she has kept her campaign promises to the people of New York State.
I live in New York State. As far as I know, she made no promises. New Yorkers have simply been used as a footstool to launch her campaign for the Presidency which is all she has been doing since before Bill left office.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
Oh my goodness.
That does it. I'm going to the Obama website to donate.
[responding to Living in Gin]
[ 30. January 2008, 17:46: Message edited by: Anna B ]
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, the Tribune endorsed Obama a few days ago, though I think their coverage of him has been more balanced.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
