US Presidential Elections

[Walsingham]

On the contrary, most public assassinations are carried out by loners. I refer you to How to Kill. Ted Kennedy, JFK, Reagan, John Lennon. These are the really dangerous people.

 

Thank you for explaining, by the way.

[Gorgon]

Security methods these days offer excellent protection against lone crazies. A lot has been learned from the attempt on Reagan. Ted Kennedy was in the middle of a crowd, poorly screened, and John Lennon had no protection. Nevertheless it could happen again, you can't foresee every eventuality or completely examine every person a politician shakes hands with.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Gorgon

[Guard Dog]

Dean "Florida Democrat Delegation Will Be Seated"

 

This is big new if he follows through. Hillary won big in Florida and if they seat FL, MI, and she wins by the expected margin in PA she will have a very good chance of winning the over all popular vote if not the pledged delegate count. Remember what I said, the majority of the Supers WANT to vote for her. They are afraid of Obama because he is from outside the political machine. If she gives them something to hang their hat on like a popular vote win the majority will throw in with her.

 

My dream scenario is close to becoming a reality!

[walkerguy]

Pennsylvania

 

IS NOW ONLY

20 Days Away

 

CNN Election Center Results

GET YOUR POLL RESULTS BELOW!

CNN 2008 Election Center

 

 

Under the proposal for Florida delegates, Clinton would receive 47 delegates based on her vote total,

while Obama would be awarded 36 delegates based on the "uncommitted" result; the rest would be

divided according to the nationwide popular vote total after all the primaries are completed...

( YAY Hillary!)

Hillary-Obama showdown continues. McCain gets clear path to nomination as Huckabee surrenders.

Next primary is in Pennsylvania, 20 days away.

[Gromnir]

...

 

at home and abroad there is much misunderstanding 'bout what it is that the President does and how much impact they really got. as a single and identifiable entity within the Fed Gov., the President has a chance to set the agenda... but not so much beyond that. from a practical standpoint the executive branch is a more complex and extended bureaucratic beastie than can be comprehended. the Pres can appoint whomsoever they want and usually it not make a great difference to actual day-to-day operations... and maybe they does a Kemp and goes native, eh?

 

is Congress that writes and passes Laws, not the Pres. all those things the Presidents promise is typically no more than so much bs. free health care for all americans or lower taxes? how exactly is a President gonna get that kinda stuff w/o Congress. President can veto stuff, but is not President who actually writes or passes laws.

 

is common wisdom to note that the Pres has relative free license to do as he/she wishes regarding foreign policy... which is somewhat true in theory, but less so in practice. heck, w/o a 9/11, bill clinton's foreign policy actions really don't looks all that much different from any other President post Jimmy Carter. he had lots o' troops overseas effectively fighting numerous small wars, had same allies & enemies, and encouraged/discouraged similar global economic goals. Carter is a notable exception to general theme regarding non wartime presidents in recent memory, and he managed only a single term.

 

...

 

on and on and on...

 

a President, with party majority in Congress, and a Mandate from the People, can set the agenda and gets Congress to pass laws 'n such. if a President is lucky 'nuff to be around when a bunch o' Justices die or retire, then he/she might also have some greater lasting impact on the Judiciary as well... but those Justices have an annoying tendency to thinks for themselves after they get on the Court.

 

here and abroad people gets worked up 'bout President elections to a disproportionate degree. Americans probably should be far more concerned with local elections and elections to Congress as those is the folks who is likely to have much more impact on your daily life than will election of a President... 'less there is a war.

 

btw, the difference 'tween Republican and Democrat in the American system is, more often than not, likes distinguishing 'tween two shades of grey. blue v. red? bs. european and asian scholars who is usually more familiar with systems that got dozens o' viable parties, is often dismissive of the Democrat v. Republican distinction. degrees of moderation? shades of grey? why even split, eh?

 

if you like Presidential impact, then simply vote for candidate whose party affiliation matches Congressional majority... and hope that a large % of Americans follow your lead. Presidents who get in with a mandate and a Congressional majority are the ones worth noting... otherwise you need a big war.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[walkerguy]

Actually the Prez can create legislation and send it to Congress.

Edited April 3, 2008 by walkerguy

[Gromnir]

the smiley shows that you either do understand what that means, or that you is complete unclear... am not sure which.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Gromnir is, as usual, completely correct. The ideal situation is a President of one party, a Senate controlled by the other, and a narrow division in the house.

 

The one thing, the single most important thing, a President does is appoint judges. Not just Supreme Court justices but appellate and Federal district judges. My fear is that Obama/Clinton will give us more abominations like Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter (GHB should be strung up for that one).

 

Thats one of the big reasons i'm voting for McCain. Not because I like him or his politics (I do not) but because the alternative is so much worse. Hmmm seems like all of the presidential elections I've ever voted in were the same way. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Enoch]

Gromnir is, as usual, completely correct. The ideal situation is a President of one party, a Senate controlled by the other, and a narrow division in the house.

Ideal, if you want gridlock and inaction.

 

The one thing, the single most important thing, a President does is appoint judges. Not just Supreme Court justices but appellate and Federal district judges. My fear is that Obama/Clinton will give us more abominations like Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter (GHB should be strung up for that one).

Really? The "single most important thing"? Sure, judicial appointments are among a presidency's most enduring legacies, but I don't see how that compares with major legislative proposals championed or big foreign policy decisions. Activists on the right have used "liberal judges" as a strawman in stump speeches for decades, but that doesn't mean that a candidate's taste in judges is a particularly useful criteria to use in deciding where to cast one's vote. As Gromnir mentioned, the judges have an annoying tendency to think for themselves once on the bench (you didn't note it in your post, but Justice Stevens was also appointed by a Republican-- Gerald Ford). Also, the political views of the judges are really quite irrelevant in vast majority of cases that these judges and justices hear and decide (particularly at the District Court level).

 

Hmmm seems like all of the presidential elections I've ever voted in were the same way. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

A natural consequence of the American system of "catch-all" generalist parties. Instead of voting for members of lots of different smaller parties, and forcing those elected to compromise with each other to form a working government, we make the voters do the compromising in picking which of the major generalist parties best represents their views.

 

 

 

Hillary Deathwatch: Now at 9%. The trend among the superdelegates-- even the ones who had previously supported Mrs. C-- is against her, not for her.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Enoch

[Gromnir]

"Ideal, if you want gridlock and inaction."

 

am hopeful you ain't being dismissive of the notion. the Fed govt. were set up by the Founding Fathers to be largely ineffectual and self defeating. even elementary school kids is familiar with the notion o' checks and balances, no? heck, even the most vocal Federalists of the post Revolutionary War period would be shocked to see just how much power is wielded by the US govt. of this day and age.

 

'course the fed has evolved. compare 1787 to 2008 not really work so well.

 

regardless, there is surely still a valid argument that the ideal Balance O' Power 'tween the three branches is only resulting when all three branches is largely antagonistic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

"Ideal, if you want gridlock and inaction."

 

am hopeful you ain't being dismissive of the notion.

Certainly not. I don't yearn for the total federal grinding to a halt that I suspect GD would endorse, but I certainly see the advantages of divided government. Better oversight of the executive agencies, more checks on the back-scratching of political supporters, etc. (Heck, my job is essentially based on the continuation of the intra-branch power struggle, which is always at its most intense when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the party that lost the last Presidential election.)

 

But, of course, there is always a balance between the goal of checking the exertion of power and the goal of representing the electorate, which does occasionally decide that it wants one party to have all of the power. Sure, it usually leads to a cyclical "house cleaning" in a few years, but sometimes the swift enactment of popular policy goals is worth going periods of weaker overall governance.

[Gorgon]

A natural consequence of the American system of "catch-all" generalist parties. Instead of voting for members of lots of different smaller parties, and forcing those elected to compromise with each other to form a working government, we make the voters do the compromising in picking which of the major generalist parties best represents their views.

 

Theres only two. one or the other is a choice I guess, but it's not much of one. Other democracies have been effectively two party systems through relative size, England for instance, but at least you could still find a party that fitted your personal convictions. Two just isn't enough. I think you ought to make it easier to form political parties. The role of the smaller parties are filled by single issue organizations and lobbyists. Some people consider that kind of dollar bill influence democractic, I think it's a weakness.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Gorgon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Ted Kennedy was in the middle of a crowd, poorly screened...

 

Did you mean Robert Kennedy, or was there an assassination attempt on Ted that I do not know about?

[tarna]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid.

 

You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them.

 

Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know.

As someone who originally told Di to "shut up" at one time long ago...I'm siding with her here. While her opinion is that H. Clinton will win the Dem nomination may or may not be correct, her summation is sound. The nomination will be made according to viability to win, NOT the popular vote. The Dems are more concerned with winning the Presidency than anything else. If this means kissing the public booty then they are more than willing to do so. I'll make a wager with you. Watch the local Dem convention with me. Lincoln didn't start the civil war to free the blacks from slavery for reasons of morality as much as for economic reasons.

 

As it looks like the Democratic nomination will be decided here in Denver ( as it may be too close to call ), I will wager you a $100 Visa card that ( no matter what ) Hillary will be the nominated candidate for the Dems. Decision to be arbitared here by the members of this forum. I will send you the account numbers and ex date of the card I purchase to support my claim.

 

I'm up for it...are you?

 

Walk the talk or don't piss away our time ( other denominations , (lessor or greater) available as long as a confidence in a candidate nomination is shown).

 

$100.00 on the table...pick it up or walk away! What's yer choice?

Pops, I haven't heard from you on this...My offer is still good for the next two days ( it's been nearly a month and I've not had a response from you ) and I'm lookinf for a response from you. Hillary is on the ropes and Barrack is looking strong...my offer is good for the next 48 hours.

Again, I must ask...deal or no deal?!?

[Pop]

Oh, absolutely. If people want to give me money, more power to them.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Pop

[Guard Dog]

Ideal, if you want gridlock and inaction.

 

Well, let's look at recent history. From 1992 to 1994 the Democrats held all the cards. They first voted themselves the largest pay raise by percentage in US history. Second they passed the largest tax increase in US History, then they made a determined and credible attempt to nationalize a number of private enterprises that made up 1/7th of the US economy. Add to that the fact that Bill Clinton had FBI profiles on all the top Republicans of Congress in his possession because he certainly did not have to worry about being called down by congress.

 

From 2002 to 2006 the Republicans held all the cards. We got them spending money like drunken sailors on their pet causes, the Patriot Act, oh an a little thing we might have heard of called the Iraq War.

 

So, what was it about gridlock and inaction that was so bad again? Besides, if you will remember, the federal government was shut down for some 4-5 months during the budget battle in 1996 or 1997, I forget which. The world did not end.

 

Really? The "single most important thing"? Sure, judicial appointments are among a presidency's most enduring legacies, but I don't see how that compares with major legislative proposals championed or big foreign policy decisions. Activists on the right have used "liberal judges" as a strawman in stump speeches for decades, but that doesn't mean that a candidate's taste in judges is a particularly useful criteria to use in deciding where to cast one's vote. As Gromnir mentioned, the judges have an annoying tendency to think for themselves once on the bench (you didn't note it in your post, but Justice Stevens was also appointed by a Republican-- Gerald Ford). Also, the political views of the judges are really quite irrelevant in vast majority of cases that these judges and justices hear and decide (particularly at the District Court level).

 

I would argue that is is the most important thing. Lets set aside signing legislation because that is just finishing the work of Congress. A Presidents executive orders, foreign policy moves, policy initiatives and political appointments can all be undone with a stroke of his successors pen. And they frequently are. Judicial appointments are for life and failing misconduct cannot be undone by subsequent administrations. And I would hardly call the moniker "liberal judge" or "activist judge" a campaign speech straw man or scare tactic. Or can you tell me with a straight face that Kelo v New London was properly decided? Or do you really believe the US courts should consider foreign court precedent in domestic cases? There are many others I disagree with and I find that the self titled originalists on the Court Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist (and Roberts after him) and Alito (in the few cases he's had), vote in favor of my interpretation of the law. There are many more cases where the originalists won out over the liberals that would have led to just terrible results (like Kelo). Medellin v. Texas for example and DC v Heller (yes that one has not been decided yet but it is expected to go our way 6-3)

 

You are correct the politics of judges is meaningless, all that matters is their interpretation of the law and Constitution. I have found that judges appointed by Republicans tend to take the "Chiseled in Granite" approach (with a few terrible exceptions) and those appointed by Democrats take the "Silly Putty" approach (with no exceptions). And as you pointed out, it must be one or the other.

[Enoch]

Kelo v. New London was properly decided. (And it was completely consistent with precedent-- the dissent's approach in that case was the "activist" one.)

 

Yes there are differences in outcomes based on who is sitting on the Court. But the amount and effect of policy change that one can influence through court decisions pales in comparison to the amount and effect of policy changes that one can influence through legislative advocacy, foreign policy initiatives, and executive orders. This is mostly because influencing policy via the courts is all guesswork-- you never really know which cases are going to come up or whether the people you put there will make the decision the way you want them to. Most of the ideological screening for potential nominees usually comes down to their stance on "substantive due process" cases (which includes the decisions on abortion, gay rights, and the like). A judge's position on that type of case isn't particularly informative on how they're likely to vote in cases on statutory interpretation, free speech, anti-trust, or any of the other myriad of subjects that pop up in the federal court system.

[Guard Dog]

Kelo v. New London was properly decided. (And it was completely consistent with precedent-- the dissents approach in that case was the "activist" one.)

 

Yes there are differences in outcomes based on who is sitting on the Court. But the amount and effect of policy change that one can influence through court decisions pales in comparison to the amount and effect of policy changes that one can influence through legislative advocacy, foreign policy initiatives, and executive orders. This is mostly because influencing policy via the courts is all guesswork-- you never really know which cases are going to come up or whether the people you put there will make the decision the way you want them to. Most of the ideological screening for potential nominees usually comes down to their stance on "substantive due process" cases (which includes the decisions on abortion, gay rights, and the like). A judge's position on that type of case isn't particularly informative on how they're likely to vote in cases on statutory interpretation, free speech, anti-trust, or any of the other myriad of subjects that pop up in the federal court system.

 

As for Kelo v. New London I completely disagree with you both on your assertions that the originality dissent was activist and on the motivations of the majority. I think that is worthy of another thread to discuss and is a little OT here. And you are also correct about it being near impossible to predict a judges mind set, however, I do think it is very important to start with individuals who take a constructionist view of the Constitution. At least if that is their starting point they will be more inclined to judicial restraint. One of the reasons I think judicial appointments are so important is that as a voting and politically active citizen I have some input into the legislative process. I do not fear the outcome of bad law so much as bad court decisions. A bad law can be challenged in court, it can be repealed, it can be outright defeated by a groundswell of voters talking to their representatives. A bad court decision is as strong as law and much much harder to do away with. And the individual citizens have no input into judicial decisions (nor should they). That makes it particularly important to see that the individuals making the decisions try to apply the law to modern life rather than rethinking it to accommodate modern life.

 

Once again I expect a better chance of getting the former from McCain and the latter from Obama.

[Enoch]

You make a good point about the difficulty in dealing with a bad SCOTUS decision, but I still feel that it's far too distant and speculative an issue to give much attention to in selecting which candidate to support.

 

For my part, I'm more interested in balance on the Court than I am in one ideology or another. So long as the 'swing' votes are pragmatists like O'Connor was and Kennedy is-- Judges who value greatly the Court's institutional legitimacy and are willing to compromise the doctrine of the ideological hard-liners to avoid decisions that are too far out of tune with the people's views generally-- there isn't too great a threat of earth-shaking decisions that are tough to undo. Based on that, I should probably be supporting moderate-to-liberal candidates (which I am, but mostly for other reasons) because the current balance on the Court is threatening to slip too far towards the conservative camp. ("Activism" is hardly the sole province of the liberals-- the agendas of the Scalias and Thomases of the world is merely a different kind of activism.)

 

Anyhow, you're right in that we're getting frighteningly off-topic. Feel free to resurrect the thread I linked on Kelo, though, if you'd like to discuss it further.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Enoch

[walkerguy]

Pennsylvania

 

IS NOW ONLY

7 Days Away

 

CNN Election Center Results

GET YOUR POLL RESULTS BELOW!

CNN 2008 Election Center

 

 

I'm not even going to elaborate on Obama's recent antics. I'm still for sure #2 for him, but he's soiling himself bad. I hope this doesn't portray his future actions if elected president.

[walkerguy]

Pennsylvania

6 Days Away

 

CNN 2008 Election Center

Edited April 16, 2008 by walkerguy

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm not even going to elaborate on Obama's recent antics.

 

What "antics" are we talking about?

[walkerguy]

 

Don't care if its "the truth" just don't call people "bitter" his comment is completely devoid of any strategy and is a sign of weakness. The Sith... I mean the U.S. cannot have a weak president.

[Gorgon]

What do you think about this story of Hillary embellishing on her visit to Bosnia or some such place and claiming she came under sniper fire.

 

How do you downplay that a presidential candidate shows symptoms of being a pathological liar ?

[Guard Dog]

What do you think about this story of Hillary embellishing on her visit to Bosnia or some such place and claiming she came under sniper fire.

 

How do you downplay that a presidential candidate shows symptoms of being a pathological liar ?

 

A pathological liar as the US President????? Nahhhh, that's never happened.

 

But seriously, a Clinton lying is like a dog barking. They don't know why they do it, they don't even realize they are doing it, and they don't know how to stop.