Its Super Tuesday time

[Walsingham]

I've held off tracking the elections up until this morning, since I had better things to do. But my lung infection has got worse and I'm loafing about wheezing.

 

My considered opinion is that if I were voting I'd pick McCain from the Republican camp. He has his head on square about Iraq, and is considered to be maverick and not socially conservative enough by the party's far right. The former is important because I feel Iraq is a hugely important historical crossroads. The latter is important because I find social conservatives as welcome as a prophylactic full of fire ants.

 

 

My ill considered opinion of the democrats, which is still out, is that I think Clinton has got potential to win, but the last thing America needs is a repeat of the dilatory Clinton years. Nor do they need her to go Rambo as the first female president (like Thatcher) and rush about putting smackdowns on everything just to prove she can play with the boys. Obama strikes me as the best social and economic voice, with the major flaw that he doesn't seem to have a policy on Iraq besides "leg it".

 

I've only been reading for the last couple of hours, so please do correct me if I 'm wrong.

[Guard Dog]

Hillary is what we call a "machine politician". She will not go "Rambo" believe me. However, she will give this country a double barreled gut shot blast of big government that will certainly begin with massive tax increases. She will increase not only the scope and power of the federal government (that is a bad thing in the US) she will exponentially increase it's rate of growth. That will only accelerate the current trend of major corporations leaving the US for foreign shores because it has simply become too expensive and difficult to operate here. She will not consider privatization of any public service no matter how inefficiently it is run by government. She has shown utter disdain for the military and the men and women who serve in it, and she will ransack it's funding much like Bill did. At the same time she will not want to be perceived as "weak" so she will keep up the same operational schedule and tempo. In the judiciary she thinks Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who was HER choice, not Bills) is the ideal supreme court justice. So she will appoint judges who (like her) have utterly zero respect for the Constitution in both letter and intent. In short, a Hillary presidency would be an utter nightmare, the worst of all possible scenarios. Couple that with a democratic congress and I might have to move to Canada because the taxes will be less and they will have more personal freedom.

 

Obama is Jimmy Carter take 2. People are comparing him to Kennedy but that makes no sense to me. Kennedy believed in strong national defense, measured confrontation is foreign policy, and smaller government intrusion in business. That is NOT Obama. He is a big government liberal who thinks all problems are solved by raising taxes and throwing money at it no matter how wasteful it is. In foreign policy he has said we would

1) Pull out of Iraq now no matter the consequences. That will of course leaves another war to fight 10 years later just like the gulf war did.

2) Negotiate with Iran and Al Qaeda (as if that were possible).

3) "Take our allies to task" were his exact words. He has even mentioned attacking Pakistan.

So he wants to attack allies and make nice with sworn enemies? Yes, sounds like Carter to me. He has little business experience and will make at best an ineffective domestic policy executive. Since he is not a "machine politician" he may actually create some meaningful policy and reforms and he will not galvanize a natural opposition to everything he does like Hillary will. In the judiciary I expect him to show little regard to the Constitution and appoint judges in the mold of John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

 

For the Republicans the primaries are now essentially over. Romney, well, he was a good candidate but after today he's done. Huckabee is a potential running mate for McCain but he's going nowhere by himself. And thats good because he has disguised himself as some kind of "southern preacher/politician/prophet" come to save the country from itself. He talks like a political conservative but he certainly did not govern Arkansas that way. I find people like him extremely disingenuous and I thin he's make a terrible president.

 

McCain is the lesser of all evils. He is pretty moderate in all areas except national defense. He is a big proponent of developing and expanding defensive technologies such as missile defense systems. I believe he would reduce the size of the military while at the same time upgrade the weaponry and technology and move more in the direction of unmanned systems. Bush and Clinton before him believed defense spending was mainly Boots, Beans, and Bullets. That was true in the 20th Century but not now I think. In the judiciary he says he will appoint constructionists and points to John Roberts as his ideal so I like that about him. He will expand the scope and power of the Federal government and has shown a disturbing attitude towards the Constitution, particularly the 1st and 4th amendment issues like wire tapping and campaign finance reforms. But he would not be near so harmful as Obama or Hillary would. In domestic policy I believe he will increase personal income takes, that is a bad thing but he will moderate by reducing corporate taxes which will help keep unemployment and overall consumer costs a little lower than a Dem would.

 

McCain is not a GREAT choice but given the current field, he is the BEST choice. I'm voting for him

[Sand]

While I am not against setting up diplomatic ties to Iran I am against any sort of negotiations with Al Qaeda. Only negotiation we need to do with them is at the business end of a gun. Kill them all. As for Pakistan, which is a nuclear power with an unstable government where militants and terrorists go for shelter, we need to eliminate them as an ally. Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea.

 

McCain I can respect but if he has either Romney or Huckabee as a vice I will not even bother. Those two wear their religion on their sleeve and I am afraid that they would use their political power to advance the agendas of their faiths. Being for the separation of church and state, I cannot with good conscience support those who use religion as a ticket to political office.

 

I don't like anyone of them to be president to be honest. Too bad we can't get a mix. I would be all for McCain as president with Obama as Vice.

[Kaftan Barlast]

If I was an American, Id vote for Obama. Not because he's black or whatever, that is irrelevant, but his agenda is the most sensible one. I like McCain as a person, but he would essentially continue to do exactly what GWB has been doing these past eight years, and that wont do anyone any good.

 

 

 

Religious nutcakes shouldnt be legally allowed to hold political office, IMO. Religion and politics go together like water and battery acid.

[Guard Dog]

I still trade e-mails with some people I worked with back when I was involved in politics. One of them just stepped down at the treasurer of the Republican Party of Florida. He thinks (based on the buzz in Talahassee) the McCain running mate will be either former US Rep JC Watts from OK or Charlie Crist the Governor of Florida.

 

JC Watts is an interesting choice. He is fiscally very conservative, almost libertarian. But socially he is more along McCain's mold. But he has been out of politics for a few years now so I doubt they will go that way, or that he would even be interested. I really like the man though, I'd vote for him alone.

 

Charlie Crist makes a ton of sense. He is a very popular southern governor that is ideologically VERY much like McCain. He has created a real bi-partisan coalition in Florida and has succeeded in everything he has tried to do so far. I would hate to see him go but he would make an outstanding VP and would be a solid choice for President in 2016 if they win this year. And if they come up short he would be well positioned for 2012.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Guard Dog

[WITHTEETH]

I already voted (casted my pretend vote because the Michigan democratic delegates left). I Wanted Kucinich. As for who would i want now, between Obama and Clinton...

 

They are so similar I can't seem to choose. It comes down to whats more important.

 

Obama wants to get out of Iraq faster, then he would have more time to fix the economy with more of the budget not being drained. He also wants to create a tally on the web of where each government dollar is going.

 

Hillary's Univeral healthcare i feel is more progressive in requiring everyone to have healthcare(albeit she still includes the greedy insurance agency just like Obama). She doesn't want to get out of Iraq until the end of her first term making this healthcare idea a fantasy until then i think.

 

If Mccain chooses ****abee for his running mate I'm going to **** a brick, it might be a smart move to consolidate evangelical voters since hes not strong there. Im not a fan of Mccain but I do feel he is "better" then the rest. As for ****abee i feel that he is a bigot with his comments on people with aids, gay, environmentalists. The guy doesn't even know what the separation of church and state means i think.

 

The economy is a big deal, and i haven't seen anything Specific yet, only general policy ideas. "fixing" NAFTA. I would like to see that thrown out, I want to see Wallstreet on its knees too for being so f'n greedy.

 

With that said, i agree with Kaftan, Obama.

Edited February 6, 2008 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

I want to see Wallstreet on its knees too for being so f'n greedy.

 

 

.......

 

I'm speechless. Have you ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

[WITHTEETH]

Wallstreet is out of control, its screwing up our economy. It was a nice try to keep it completely privatized but I believe its time to step in and have some sort of oversight. How would you sggest to fix it, or do you think Wallstreet is fine?

Edited February 6, 2008 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

Wallstreet is out of control, its screwing up our economy. It was a nice try to keep it completely privatized but I believe its time to step in and have some sort of oversight.

Teeth, Wall Street (although it is inaccurate in the extreme to refer to is as an actual entity) IS completely private. In the United States companies are ALL privately owned. Either by single owners, board of directors, employees, or stock holders. The federal government has VERY limited constitutional powers in regulating private business and it sounds like what you are calling for is expansion of government power beyond constitutional bounds. That is very dangerous road to go down. Or are you calling for the nationalization of private business? That my friend is communisim.

[WITHTEETH]

Makes sense, but what can we do to fix it? Wallstreet is causing major problems.

[Guard Dog]

Makes sense, but what can we do to fix it? Wallstreet is causing major problems.

Like what?

 

We are wandering OT here but I'm really curious what you are driving at.

[Azarkon]

McCain seems to be the military candidate. His background certainly lends itself - neither Obama nor Clinton can boast much of a military career while McCain grew up in the thick of the fighting, so to speak. That would explain his foreign policy commitments, and I suspect that McCain is less interested in ending wars than he is in starting them, or at least giving the military something to do that would justify the huge budget.

 

That said, in a time of war McCain seems a safer choice than candidates with little or no military experience. Economics, though? I doubt he'll do any more than GWB did.

 

In essence, then, this election boils down to what you consider the greater threat: the Islamofascists whom, since the 9/11 attacks have been built up as the next great threat to everything Western, or the domestic economy which, as we are increasingly aware, is going down the drain. Personally, I'd elect Obama just to break the neo-con trend, but that's partly because I've lost faith in the American system. At this point, it's hard to say what would send a better message - choosing the lesser of all evils, or abstaining to vote and thereby proclaiming no-confidence in American democracy.

[Volourn]

"Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea."

 

Nah.

 

I'd stick with McCain, or Obama. They ain't perfect; but they'll do.

[Meshugger]

I think that WITHTEETH wants some governmental oversight in Wall Street in terms of regulation and oversight in order to prevent over-speculation, not nationalizing the companies themselves. Maybe a legislative change on business practices perhaps?

 

If i was a US citizen, i would vote for Obama. McCain sounds like a "sensible version" of Bush, Huckabee is basically Bush 3.0, Romney is a businessman with some interest in politics, and Ron Paul is radically different than the rest. Hillary is a career politician through and through. Like how everyone should have health-insurance (people cheer yay!), but the insurance-companies control on how this i implemented in practice (individual choice gone, companies cheer yay!), and in the long run, everyone loses. She isn't even left-wing, she is pro-corporatism which is a threat that any conservative or liberal hates for the same reason: It is fascism.

 

Obama seems like the most harmless of them (gut-feeling though).

 

My favorite candidate would have Ron Paul's fiscal policy and Kucinich's social and constitutional policy, but such a person is like a total free market or communism: It's just wishful thinking.

[Tale]

I'm an Obama fan. His ideas for change seem to be the most appealling to me. As an example, he's talked quite a bit about using the internet to allow the people of the US to see more about what is going on in the political process and potentially be involved. Not a chance in hell, but I like the spirit of it. It seems like the closest thing to political reform we're going to see this election. He also seems to have an eye on energy. I'm not sure how to feel about his stance on Iraq, but considering how long we've been there, I'm tempted to side with his stance.

[Dark_Raven]

McCain I suppose. If Clinton wasn't so lame whne it came to pissing on the Constitution and increasing taxes, she would have had my vote.

[Qwerty the Sir]

I wanted to sell my vote but apparently its illegal.

[Sand]

"Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea."

 

Nah.

 

I'd stick with McCain, or Obama. They ain't perfect; but they'll do.

 

 

Which is the more dangerous country? The one who has nukes or the one that doesn't?

[Tale]

"Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea."

 

Nah.

 

I'd stick with McCain, or Obama. They ain't perfect; but they'll do.

 

 

Which is the more dangerous country? The one who has nukes or the one that doesn't?

So, it's reasonable to say the country with the most nukes is the most dangerous country?

[Gfted1]

Hehe, it was too easy to paint him into that corner.

[Sand]

So, it's reasonable to say the country with the most nukes is the most dangerous country?

 

Pretty much, and yes, the US is a dangerous country. Any country with nuclear weapons is bloody dangerous. If our leadership decided to go all nutty and launch nuclear weapons who would be there to stop them? Pakistan is an unstable country. Its leadership is power mad, its people are running through the streets, terrorists and extremists are in the hillside making plans. In its current state of affairs, it is a very dangerous country.

[Walsingham]

Quick one:

I love it when Sand gets all butch, talking about "killing them all". Sando, there are literally millions of Al Qaeda sympathisers out there. If you want to send us chaps out to kill them we'd be grateful if you could find some method of correctly distinguising between them and patriots/poor people. And find us a really big hole.

 

Which brings me to:

I wonder how much of each candidate's policy is purely down to distinguishing themselves from the other candidiates? Assuming GD's observations on Obama's foreign policy represent statements he's made (and it would be rude to do otherwise) they seem extraordinary. Viz:

 

"1) Pull out of Iraq now no matter the consequences. That will of course leaves another war to fight 10 years later just like the gulf war did.

2) Negotiate with Iran and Al Qaeda (as if that were possible).

3) "Take our allies to task" were his exact words. He has even mentioned attacking Pakistan."

 

1. Who the hell is advising this guy? I don't know any professional sources (and I exclude terminally lazy op ed journalists from this) who believe a precipitate pullout would provoke anything other than a maelstrom of killing, and a festering failed state. Some even believe it would lead to an expanded Iran, leading to a showdown between Iran and Saudi, which would necessitate an immediate RETURN to the Gulf for the USA.

2. Negotiation with elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is sensible. But the degree to which it is sensible is already being done. Believing you can negotiate with a group which has as its purpose a worlwide religious dictatorship as its end goal, and the erasure of the last seven hundred years as its end goal is fairyland.

3. We obviously have to apply pressure to allies who do stuff we don't like. But there are times to do so and times not to do so.

 

 

And:

While I hate to say it, with so much riding on foreign policy toward old skool countries with no feminism, is having a female President just going to egg the resentment pudding?*

 

 

 

*Resentment pudding is like distressed pudding, but with more laxatives and thalidomide.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think it would definently piss off the entire middle-east if Hillary was to win the election. To put it comicly; now only would they find themselves pwnd time and time again, but they would be pwnd by a blond white chick. There would be extremists in every street corner raving at the fact that "the great satan" has upped the ante by not only being iraq-invading blaspheming infidels, but now also so unthinkably depraved as to elect a woman!

 

 

silly sods.

[Guard Dog]

Romney has pulled out of the Republican race. He endorsed McCain.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/rom...aign/index.html

 

That means 2 things:

 

1) McCain no longer needs to make an aliiance with Huckabee so the Hucksters shot at being the VP has just been reduced to zero. Thats a good thing.

 

2) McCain can now begin to focus on the national race right away wheras Hillary and Obama still need expend a ton of blood and treasure fighting each other. That race is so tight it may go all the way to the convention and no matter who wins the losers supporters will be pissed off. And the winner will be facing Mccain who had a 3 month head start and will have more money. This makes McCain the most likely candidate to become the 44th President of the United States.

 

There is a labored truisim in American politics, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." You will begin the hear conservative criticisim of McCain fall mute.

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I tend to see Obama being the only candidate with a shot of beating McCain. Clinton will not pull and republican votes, and McCain will pull democrats, so it would be a bad strategic choice for the democratic party to go with Clinton. Unfortunately strategy doesn't seem to be important at this stage.

 

I'll actually be happy with any of the current three in office. It will be a big departure from the Bush era and the country is definitely in need of change. I'm fairly apolitical about parties and all, but I really dislike seeing leadership become too entrenched. It think the more variety and changing of the guard, the less likely you are to go stagnant. The situation in Iraq is definitely stagnant, so it will be interesting to see what new approaches will come with new leadership.