US Presidential Elections

[Guard Dog]

Our last thread on this subject is past it's expiration date and was a little derailed anyway. I was partly to blame for that I must admit. So, here is where we stand:

 

Democrats:

 

Hillary Clinton: 1016 Delegates

Barack Obama: 1158 Delegates

 

First one to 2025 secures the nomination

 

There are some 800 Superdelegates that will make their choices at or before the convention. As it stands Clinton has 234, Obama has 161. The Supers are under no obligation to follow the results of the election

 

Republicans

 

John McCain: 918 Delegates

Mike Huckabee: 214 Delegates

 

First one to 1191 secures the nomination. The Republican Party does not use superdelegates and the nominee must be elected by voters.

[Nick_i_am]

I havn't really been following this so far, but it looks like the Die Hard guy is pretty much the republicans choice.

 

What kind of leader are we looking at here? I see that he's a vietnam vet and seems less conservative than Bush but as a republican what's your opinion of him?

[Guard Dog]

He's a Rockefeller Republican. That is he is from the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Not exactly a smaller government type (which bothers me). He does not appeal to the social conservatives either and that is to the good. One this I really do like about him is he is a big proponent of modernizing the military and Homeland Security and reducing manpower in favor of automated and unmanned systems like the Predators. He is also a proponent of developing missile shield technology and has been a friend to NASA in the Senate. On the whole he is a capable, competent Washington bureaucrat who will move the direction of government to the left of where it has been on social and economic issues. In foreign policy he is solidly on the site of the stick as opposed to the carrot.

 

In short, he is the vanilla choice. Not exciting or sexy but what you see it what you get. No surprises with him I think. I'm voting for him.

[Laozi]

I'd wait to see who he chooses as a running mate given the high probability he'll die in office.

 

 

I was gonna make some term expiring joke, but **** that ****.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Laozi

[walkerguy]

Go Hillary Clinton!! We need a Clinton to clean-up after a Bush! Clinton/Bush 20 years + yay!!!! Second choice McCain and third Barrack Osama.

[Nick_i_am]

Sounds like it could be just what the country needs in terms of social and economic if he can actually sort the economy. I've heard people diss Clinton for the same 'vanilla' tendancies, but he did strenghen the dollar.

 

Can't comment on the millitary stuff since my views on that are so skewed, being a brit, and we'll have to see how stick tactics work out.

 

I can't say i'm keen on the theory of missle defences though, since MAD seems to work, but ultimately if 'they' develop them first then 'we're' in the ****, so yeah.

 

Generally i'd find myself leaning more towards to democratic party, as per my socalist tendancies (which have far more basis in a country the size of the UK), but Hillary is haha, and i'm worried that Obama, while charasmatic, won't actually do much good in the long term.

On the flip side, i'm equally worried about cowboy republican presidents who want to turn the whole world into Texas, so on your short summery it sounds like this would be the candidate i'd be most interested in.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

[walkerguy]

PREZs OF THE PAST

[Guard Dog]

I'd wait to see who he chooses as a running mate given the high probability he'll die in office.

 

 

I was gonna make some term expiring joke, but **** that ****.

 

My best guesses are Charlie Crist, JC Watts, Lindsey Graham, or Mark Sanford and my long shot would be Joe Liberman, THAT choice would light a fire in the tinderbox. But he really can't afford another "moderate" on the ticket with him. I've also heard Phil Gramm, Mel Martinez and Jeb Bush mentioned. I doubt they will get a serious look though.

 

My preference would be Sanford, Crist, or Watts. Any of the three would make a fine President.

[walkerguy]

I'd wait to see who he chooses as a running mate given the high probability he'll die in office.

 

 

I was gonna make some term expiring joke, but **** that ****.

 

My best guesses are Charlie Crist, JC Watts, Lindsey Graham, or Mark Sanford and my long shot would be Joe Liberman, THAT choice would light a fire in the tinderbox. But he really can't afford another "moderate" on the ticket with him. I've also heard Phil Gramm, Mel Martinez and Jeb Bush mentioned. I doubt they will get a serious look though.

 

My preference would be Sanford, Crist, or Watts. Any of the three would make a fine President.

 

EDIT: Ah I see, yeah, running mates. Sorry.

Edited February 21, 2008 by walkerguy

[Laozi]

On the flip side, i'm equally worried about cowboy republican presidents who want to turn the whole world into Texas

 

 

We'll let that slide since you likely never have been to Tejas.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Laozi

[walkerguy]

Texas is a joke.

[Azarkon]

McCain has been called by some to be cut from the same neo-conservative cloth as Bush and his supporters. What's your view on this, McCain supporters? Do you agree with the neo-conservative view, or do you think that McCain is as much of a maverick as he claims?

[Sand]

My first choice is Obama, my second choice is McCain. Clinton isn't even on the radar. I would rather vote for Huckabee than Clinton.

[Guard Dog]

McCain has been called by some to be cut from the same neo-conservative cloth as Bush and his supporters. What's your view on this, McCain supporters? Do you agree with the neo-conservative view, or do you think that McCain is as much of a maverick as he claims?

 

I would not call myself a McCain supporter because of anything he has ever said or done. He is simply the lesser of all evils. But in the interest of discussion I'll try to make an answer. But first, what is your definition of "Neo-Conservative"? I ask that because it is a term/pejorative that seems to have different meanings to different people.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Go Hillary Clinton!! We need a Clinton to clean-up after a Bush! Clinton/Bush 20 years + yay!!!! Second choice McCain and third Barrack Osama.

 

And exactly why do we need another Clinton in the White House? Why would we want an extremely partisan, divisive person as our next President? Billary Clinton is, hopefully, almost ready to quit the race for the Democratic Nomination -ten straight losses tends to make your movement loose moral and momentum-, something that, in my opinion, cannot come quickly enough. As for McCain, he is still rather conservative when it comes to social and religious issues, but I do not believe that he a complete NeoCon. This is not to say that I support him, but it is true that he is the lesser of the Republican evils.

[Gorgon]

Who's gonna win though democrat or republican, or do polls even matter with that college of cardinals funnybuisiness you are running.

 

 

 

( intentional. )

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Texas is a joke.

 

Austin is ok, although I would not want to live in some of the more backwater parts of Texas...

[Azarkon]

McCain has been called by some to be cut from the same neo-conservative cloth as Bush and his supporters. What's your view on this, McCain supporters? Do you agree with the neo-conservative view, or do you think that McCain is as much of a maverick as he claims?

 

I would not call myself a McCain supporter because of anything he has ever said or done. He is simply the lesser of all evils. But in the interest of discussion I'll try to make an answer. But first, what is your definition of "Neo-Conservative"? I ask that because it is a term/pejorative that seems to have different meanings to different people.

 

For the lack of a better source, it is perhaps prudent to begin with the following (lifted from Wikipedia) definition of neoconservative policy:

 

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8]

 

2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8]

 

3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8]

 

4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8]

 

5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[8]

 

Of course, all five need not be present for defining a neoconservative, and in recent years the term has become closer to an articulation of #2, #4, and #5 than #1 and #3. Essentially, a neoconservative cut from the same cloth as Bush would feel sympathy for the Project for a New American Century, and is not at all reluctant to utilize the American military to achieve that end. A neoconservative is thus, above all, interventionist, but it is a particularly sort of interventionism that the neocon pursues:

 

"According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism... The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."[32] Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos.

 

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite."

 

A neocon, as such, ostensibly believes in a worldwide "democratic" revolution and is thus closer to the ideological Left than the term conservative suggests (leading to the suggestion that neocons are "liberals gone rogue"). However, the Bush administration has shown that neoconservatism is quite capable of adopting in the face of failure. When their grand plans were thrown down by the catastrophe of Iraq nation-building, the neocons realigned themselves with a more "realistic" view of the world. Thus, the Bush administration cooled its anti-Iran fervor, at least temporarily, to seek stability in Iraq. However, I do not believe that just because the neocon has become more realpolitik that he is therefore free from his earlier visions. Rather, the difference between a neocon and a conservative lies in his dedication to the need to create and defeat foreign boogeymen in the advancement of American interests across the world. That is the legacy of his Cold War experience - that only proactive and preemptive interventionism, such as practiced by the CIA in overthrowing numerous foreign regimes, can maintain American hegemony & security. Thus, just as we emerged out of the Cold War more powerful than ever, we shall emerge even more powerful still if we use our newfound power to the same ends.

 

Many people consider neoconservatism, as such, to be a new imperialism - no different in philosophy than that practiced by the British Empire at the height of its power. Neoconservatives identify a particular civilization mode as being superior (ie American or Western) and attempt to justify an expansionist policy towards the rest of the world (previously associated with the "white man's burden," but now for the sake of PC is more keenly associated with universal human rights or democracy) on the basis of spreading the superior model for the benefit of all. Of course, just as the British Empire was by no means devoid of self-interest, the neoconservative "empire" is tied to national interest - the assumption that separates neocons from classic imperialists being the doctrine that "those who are like us, will serve us." Thus, neocons do not seek to reimpose colonialism on the rest of the world. Democracy and capitalism, they believe, are just as effective in bringing nations and peoples to the service of the American system, since we are, after all, the de facto center of both.

 

There is much more to be said and criticized about neoconservatism, not the least of which is just how effective neoconservative philosophy really is with regards to serving American interests in light of the fact that foreign adventures seem to incur severe economic costs. But let's start with this definition.

[Guard Dog]

Ok, we can work with that. I'd say that Bush certainly qualifies as a neo-conservative based on this outline. And I can say with absolute certainty I do not. But this is not about me.

 

On taxes and federal spending McCain has either sponsored of voted in favor of tax cuts 85% of the time. He has either sponsored or voted in favor of spending cuts 90% of the time. Just looking it over he seems to be more in favor of cutting corporate and capital gains taxes rather than personal income takes and that certainly does more to encourage economic growth. In 1992 he co-sponsored and voted for a bill to require a super majority of Congress to raise taxes and that same year voted for a 15% reduction in capital gains taxes. He voted against Bill Clinton's 1994 budget and tax increase (the largest in American history). He has voted in favor of the $500 per child tax credit, eliminating the marriage penalty, the lifetime learning tax credit (he co-sponsored it's creation) and the balanced budget amendment. He has voted against eliminating the "death tax" and voted against Bush's tax cuts. It must be noted that he voted against Bush's tax cuts only AFTER the cap on discretionary spending was removed from the bill.

 

In short he seems to be a consistent fiscal conservative who favors cutting taxes AND spending rather than the GWB model of cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor. Not very Neo-Con of him.

 

As far as the size and scope of government, that is impossible to say. He has been in the Senate for a long time and by his voting record he would seem to be inclined towards less government intervention and has consistently voted to reduce spending. But since he has never held an executive office, I really can not make a call.

 

On social policy and traditional values he is a really mixed bag. On one hand he opposes abortion but does not want to overturn Roe. He is in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research but wants strict government control of the process. He is in favor or amnesty and work permits of illegal immigrants but voted in favor of the border fence. He is a strong environmentalist but does not support ethanol subsidies (but he is very much in favor of federal mileage regulations). He has been a consistent champion of affirmative action voting against every bill that limits or weakens it and he sponsored and got passed a bill offering tax credits to media companies owned by minorities in 1999. On crime he has voted in favor of sentencing guide lines and voted for the Brady Bill then voted against the Assault Weapons Ban. He opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and promises to invest federal dollars in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Not Neo-Con at all.

 

On foreign policy he has been VERY critical of "Nation Building" and almost apoplectic over treatment of detainees in Gitmo. But he does support the "Surge" escalation in Iraq (and who could argue, it is working). He voted in favor of the Iraq war from the start but has been very critical of how it has been managed. He is very much in favor or reducing foreign military commitments overseas (particularly Europe and the West Pacific) but has no trouble with a permanent US presence in the middle east.

 

Too be honest, I would have a hard time defining him as a neo con at all. Politically he is probably a lot closer to JFK that the guy they are actually comparing to JFK (Obama). My read on McCain is he takes every issue and acts on it based on his own personal belief no matter what the party line is. I don't know if that makes him a maverick because I really don't believe he's bucking the party line just to do it. I think he just goes about his life being who he is and is comfortable enough in his own skin to do it.

 

 

 

My sourced linked below, because I flatter myself to think I know a lot but I know I don't know everything.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/

http://www.nationalplatforms.com/candidates/john_mccain.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202951082...in_commentaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...n#Social_policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

[SteveThaiBinh]

I also find the prospect of a McCain presidency unworrying. It will certainly be a massive improvement on the present incumbent - any of the three current mainstream contenders would be. I think this is going to be a good year.

 

On a related note, after Super Tuesday the commentators on the news were all saying that February would be a good month for Obama, but that Clinton would be able to recover ground in March. Is that still likely to happen, or is Obama doing well in places that Clinton was counting on to make her comeback?

[Pop]

In short he seems to be a consistent fiscal conservative who favors cutting taxes AND spending rather than the GWB model of cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor. Not very Neo-Con of him.

Any and every Republican contender of the last 20 years have thrown up a shadow of The Gipper and swore to be responsible with the budget, and none of them ever have. The beast cannot be starved.

 

Too be honest, I would have a hard time defining him as a neo con at all. Politically he is probably a lot closer to JFK that the guy they are actually comparing to JFK (Obama). My read on McCain is he takes every issue and acts on it based on his own personal belief no matter what the party line is. I don't know if that makes him a maverick because I really don't believe he's bucking the party line just to do it. I think he just goes about his life being who he is and is comfortable enough in his own skin to do it.

McCain is more than willing to compromise his personal beliefs to smooth out a ride to the presidency. As long as he's perceived as not being a panderer he can pander all he wants. Right now McCain is in the process of wooing the hardliners who aren't comfortable with his record. So he's come out and let the American People know that all we have to do is trust the military not to torture people, which is completely unlike Bush in every way, yes sir, not at all like Bush. Had he actually come out and said torture ought to be illegal, conservatives would've had fit and the Repubs wouldn't have won the election they by all logic should be losing anyway. So is McCain a true conservative? No. But he's more than willing to act like one to get ahead. But you know what? He was tortured in Vietnam. John Q. Slackjaw is going to vote for him whether or not he shows himself to be a sack-of-**** hypocrite on the issue. He's a jinyouwine hero. That's the biggest obstacle facing the democrats. McCain's a big puppy with wounded eyes. He's the one brave vietname vet, the one who didn't lose the war. What Obama has to do is hammer the bastard on his flip-flops and his support for ****ing Iraq into the ground for the next 100 years. Hillary won't be able to do that.

 

I'll say this much: Expect lots and lots of "Why do you hate America"s directed at the dems this election cycle. McCain is above nothing. The people who would vote for him certainly aren't.

 

It will certainly be a massive improvement on the present incumbent - any of the three current mainstream contenders would be. I think this is going to be a good year.

This is not a feat. Pol Pot's dead right testicle would make a better president than George Bush. There is no bright side. We can do better, and we can do better.

 

On a related note, after Super Tuesday the commentators on the news were all saying that February would be a good month for Obama, but that Clinton would be able to recover ground in March. Is that still likely to happen, or is Obama doing well in places that Clinton was counting on to make her comeback?

In order to make any sort of claim, Clinton has to take Texas, Ohio and probably Pennsylvania by large margins. Then she can move onto the Superdelegates, who are party insiders appointed to protect the Democratic core from the kind of populist groundswell that a candidate like Obama rides in on. That's the only chance she has. If any of those variables don't turn up in her favor, she might as well turn it in. The polls are coming up in her favor in those states, but Obama's closing and the some of the polls have been drastically wrong in this very election cycle.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Pop

[Walsingham]

*Walsh pins his ears backa nd pays attention*

[Guard Dog]

Pop, you need to understand something about politics. And I'm not talking about just the US here, but politics in general. It is a game that the idealists lose and pragmatists win. That is why we have McCain and Clinton/Obama to choose from and not Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich. No one, democrat, republican, whatever gets into office, let alone governs effectively, without shaking hands with the devil.

 

 

Your first point is that the past three republican presidents have been budget busters. That is true on the surface but let's look at that. First of all the President does not spend money, Congress does. Reagan and Bush were facing a hostile congress so to get what they wanted they had to make sure there was room in the budget for what the democrats wanted. That

[walkerguy]

McCain liklely won't win this though. You know that right? No ones going to vote for him, because theres a black and a woman running this time.

[Enoch]

Here is a fun issue-based candidate chooser. (It's better than most of the ones I've seen because it lets you weight the importance of the various issues.) Obama came in at 79% for me, 1% ahead of Clinton (and tied with Mike Gravel, oddly enough).