US Presidential Elections

[Gromnir]

the notion of an honest politician may be oxymoronic, but Gromnir is naive enough to still consider trust a meaningful attribute. sadly, as much as Gromnir is intrigued by the notion o' a female president, we gots some serious trust issues with hillary.

 

 

no biggie. as we has noted previously, Gromnir is far more concerned by local representatives and local politics than Presidential candidates. for the typical US citizen, the US President got far less impact on your daily life than you might expect.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

the notion of an honest politician may be oxymoronic, but Gromnir is naive enough to still consider trust a meaningful attribute. sadly, as much as Gromnir is intrigued by the notion o' a female president, we gots some serious trust issues with hillary.

 

 

no biggie. as we has noted previously, Gromnir is far more concerned by local representatives and local politics than Presidential candidates. for the typical US citizen, the US President got far less impact on your daily life than you might expect.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

For the most part that's true. State and local government has the most immediate affect on most of us. But these past years haven't been business as usual; the Iraq war has affected every citizen of this country in one way or another, and had global affects as well. I'm actually a McCain fan; have been for years. However, I can't get past his support of the Iraq war and the way he's kowtowed to the GOP by being a Bush lapdog for the past few years. He's not the independent maverick I once loved. Add that to the fact that I would prefer a more balanced SCOTUS than I believe we'd get with a republican in the office, I'm kinda stuck with voting democratic or third party.

 

I never really bought into the GOP's vendetta against the Clintons; I figure that if 8 years of constant investigations and special prosecutors couldn't dig up enough dirt to put them in the slam, there probably isn't any more in their background than that of any of the lifetime politicians in D.C. That vendetta is the reason I'm no longer a republican; I'm a pox-on-both-your-houses Independent! As far as I'm concerned, she's a two-term senior senator who has done a good job for her state and earned the respect of her colleagues. That's more than I know about Obama, so I'm nervous about him.

 

If McCain would have a change of heart about Iraq before November, I'd strongly consider voting for him. But he won't, so I won't.

Edited April 25, 2008 by ~Di

[Gromnir]

see previous comments by Gromnir regarding the Justice selections... besides which, Gromnir is a follower of strict construction when it comes to Constitutional law. the tendency of recent republican Presidents to appoint strict construction Justices is a positive in our book, but regardless of philosophy, we is more concerned with competence. (after all, Brennan were appointed by Eisenhower for chrissakes,) hell, we still think that it is tragic that a judge as brilliant as Robert Bork were kept off of the Court 'cause of somewhat misguided political reasons. ability is no longer a primary concern.

 

as for the war stuff, Gromnir has far too good a memory to forget all the foreign conflicts that were going on while the other clinton were in the oval office. am not sure why kosovo and mogadishu is so easy to forget. is not as if when the democrats were in office the US were uninvolved in bloody foreign wars.

 

the US President has far less practical freedom when it comes to foreign affairs than most s'pose.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

That vendetta is the reason I'm no longer a republican; I'm a pox-on-both-your-houses Independent! As far as I'm concerned, she's a two-term senior senator who has done a good job for her state and earned the respect of her colleagues.

 

I really do not care about the "vendetta" - I am a liberal independent because I choose to be, not because I am mad at one major party or the other. That is not to say that I love either one, especially after the Republican decision to pander to the radical-right, religious-right, and neo-con agenda. As for Billary, I simply do not like her or her husband - who I believe should have been impeached for making false statements to a grand jury. Sure, his affair should, most likely, not have been an issue at all - but once it was brought to light he should have simply admitted he got his **** sucked and moved on. I respect neither one, and thus my opposition is more personal than political. As for her sex, I do not really care - as long as someone is doing a good job, his or her sex and race should not be issues.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Guard Dog]

That's a bit over-simplified. Don't forget, nearly half of the democratic party supports Hillary. If we took into account Florida and Michigan, two states that will not be allowed a voice in the democratic primaries at all, she has more than half. I find it hard to believe that a candidate with that much support would be considered to be "destroying" the party simply because she doesn't roll over and die.

 

It's just as easy to say that an ambitious, first-year freshman senator with extremely limited governmental experience, no foreign policy or economic experience, no demonstrable program beyond "change!" is destroying the party to satisfy his own narcissism.

 

In my experience, obsessive or extreme hatred, even of a politician, for whatever reason seems to distort the reality of those who are consumed by it. Hillary has proven herself to be a capable, experienced politician who has earned the respect of her colleagues. The fact that two major delegate states decided to tic off the DNC by changing their primary dates, thus losing all of their delegates and disenfranchising millions of their voters... the majority of which voted for Hillary... is hardly her fault. She has a duty to her millions of supporters, nearly half of the party, to continue on.

 

Gorth: Frankly I think that implying because she didn't end her marriage over her husband's infidelity proves her ambitions to be utterly sexist and unfair. Now she is to blame because her husband publicly humiliated her? That's rubbish. A lot of women and men are able to rebuild their marriages after infidelity. And please point out which male presidential candidates of the past few decades have not been politically ambitious. Why is ambition a bad thing only when a female possesses it?

 

Stay with me here Di, I'm going to reply to points you made over your last three posts. First of all, take Michigan out of you mind. Only Hillary's name was on the ballot. Florida is legitimate however and should count. That alone would not put her ahead in either the popular vote or delegate count since Obama won 40% of the vote and 1/3 of the delegates in FL. The point I was bringing up is this: She knows what the probable outcome would be if the super delegates reverse the outcome of the election (assuming Obama wins more delegates and votes). There is a good chance it will fracture the party for all time. And she is still asking them to do it because she would be a stronger general election candidate (and she probably would be). I am reminded of Wendell Wilkie who ran against FDR during WW2. At the time the war was not going well but Wilkie refused to make it an issue by criticizing FDR on it. When asked about it he replied "I'd rather lose the election than see America lose the war". I guess Hillary finds that whole greater good concept outdated. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should drop out now with six primaries still to go and her trailing so closely but if she comes up short (as is a near mathematical certainty) she will fight for every super delegate to overturn the election. That kind of naked ambition is a little disturbing no matter who has it.

 

As for Iraq, getting involved in the first place was folly. Ending it now would guarantee another war in 10 years or less. When we were packing up to leave in 1991 we all knew we would have to come back. Our CO even said as much. If the job is left unfinished now there will be a third war probably following another 9-11. No matter who wins in November Iraq will continue until the situation stabilizes. Obama and Clinton are not dumb. They know this but are telling their voters what they want to hear. McCain is at least being honest (a bit too enthusiastically IMO).

 

When I comes to the SCOTUS believe me you do not want Hillary picking judges. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was her choice. I would echo Gromnirs points about ability and judicial restraint being the most desirable qualities. The recent Dem court picks are based solely on personal policy preferences.

 

I am pulling for Hillary. I really do hope the super delegates do hand her the nomination in defiance of the voters because I am curious what the outcome would be. And it is of small import to me who wins the Dem nomination because I'm voting for McCain no matter what. Not because I like McCain but because the alternatives are so much worse.

[~Di]

see previous comments by Gromnir regarding the Justice selections... besides which, Gromnir is a follower of strict construction when it comes to Constitutional law. the tendency of recent republican Presidents to appoint strict construction Justices is a positive in our book, but regardless of philosophy, we is more concerned with competence. (after all, Brennan were appointed by Eisenhower for chrissakes,) hell, we still think that it is tragic that a judge as brilliant as Robert Bork were kept off of the Court 'cause of somewhat misguided political reasons. ability is no longer a primary concern.

 

We differ here.

 

as for the war stuff, Gromnir has far too good a memory to forget all the foreign conflicts that were going on while the other clinton were in the oval office. am not sure why kosovo and mogadishu is so easy to forget. is not as if when the democrats were in office the US were uninvolved in bloody foreign wars.

 

I said the Iraq War because I meant the Iraq War. It was an illegal pre-emptive strike on a country that posed no threat to us, and it was based upon deceit and false intelligence. I support the war in Afghanistan, which is going poorly because most of our resources are tied up in Iraq. I supported the US-led NATO intervention in Kosovo because I was pretty damned sick of watching Serbia attempt genocide against all of its neighbors year after year after year while Europe sat on its hands. Mogidishu was supposed to be a mercy mission, bringing in food. Who knew that Al Qaeda had quietly set itself up under the protection of its own warlord? We should have known, that's who. Dumb stunt all the way around, with lousy intell and tragic results. But no way can those relatively short skirmishes compare with the two-front war we now are mired in because of the Iraq invasion. Thanks to Bush and Rummy's ineptness and lack of logic, this country will still be mired in those wars for the rest of my lifetime, and possibly for the rest of my childrens' lifetimes. This annoys me. Greatly.

 

the US President has far less practical freedom when it comes to foreign affairs than most s'pose.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yep, they have to surround themselves with devious, like-minded folk then deliberately hone a plan to dupe a lazy and stupid congress into going along with it. Our government would be great if it wasn't run by politicians.

 

 

Guard Dog: I understand what you are saying; I even agree with much of it. I simply do not ascribe personal ambition and moral ambiguity more to Hillary than I do to Obama, McCain or any other politician. And I most certainly do not hold her accountable for what her husband did or did not do while he was in office.

Edited April 26, 2008 by ~Di

[Gromnir]

"Dumb stunt all the way around, with lousy intell and tragic results. But no way can those relatively short skirmishes compare with the two-front war we now are mired in because of the Iraq invasion."

 

am gonna disagree there. sure, the scope is bigger with iraq, but same kinda bad intel and predictable results when fighting someplace where even the folks who you is s'posed trying to help don't want you 'round. clinton's little military blunders, including letting al qaeda become more than an easily erased nuisance in the first place, seems easily forgotten... and never seemed to get appropriate press.

 

is easy to forget that the brits joined in on the invasion o' iraq. british intel is generally considered pretty good and is not quite so tech dependent as US intelligence. is not as if the US were asking the brits to come along to go see a movie on a saturday afternoon neither. you not think that the brits did some checking of their own before signing up with the invasion plan? and heck, forget the brits for a sec and consider for a moment all the US military folks and civilian politicians that were no doubt consulted pre-invasion. if you thinks bush ordered an attack o' iraq without consulting majority and minority leaders in Congress first, then you is nuttier than a squirell. the notion that bush did some kinda dr. mesmer routine on everybody seems like wishful thinking rather than a reasonable conclusion. obviously a great many people were mistaken 'bout the reality o' iraq pre-invasion... which is understandable 'cause it sounds like saddam's own people were lying to saddam 'bout various weapons programs and such, and of course saddam wouldn't let in inspectors to verify the truth or falseness of intel we did have.

 

but let us assume for a sec that the original invasion were all just a terrible mistake perpetrated by bush to one-ups his dad... or somesuch similar explanation. now what? what is solution for getting out of iraq? simply pull out and let the natives fix the mess?

 

is not near as simple as Di seems to wanna make it. would be nice if we could point to one guy, like bush, and say, "that clown is responsible for this whole mess." bush is a yutz. am not pro-bush by any stretch of the imagination. still amazes Gromnir that the democrats were so incompetent that they couldn't beat out bush's second term run at the Presidency. even so, given our system o' government, the President is never quite as responsible for foreign policy or domestic economic success and blunders as is typically believed... 'cept in Real war times.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

"Dumb stunt all the way around, with lousy intell and tragic results. But no way can those relatively short skirmishes compare with the two-front war we now are mired in because of the Iraq invasion."

 

am gonna disagree there. sure, the scope is bigger with iraq, but same kinda bad intel and predictable results when fighting someplace where even the folks who you is s'posed trying to help don't want you 'round. clinton's little military blunders, including letting al qaeda become more than an easily erased nuisance in the first place, seems easily forgotten... and never seemed to get appropriate press.

 

You disagree that our foray into Mogadishu is not comparable to a 5-year-and-rising full-blown war and occupation? That surprises me.

 

is easy to forget that the brits joined in on the invasion o' iraq. british intel is generally considered pretty good and is not quite so tech dependent as US intelligence. is not as if the US were asking the brits to come along to go see a movie on a saturday afternoon neither. you not think that the brits did some checking of their own before signing up with the invasion plan?

 

Surely you know that some of the so-called "manufactured" evidence presented to the UN was from British Intel. When the fact that it was phoney... the British people labeled it phony, not faulty... was discovered, the Brits were outraged enough to drive Blair out of office.

 

but let us assume for a sec that the original invasion were all just a terrible mistake perpetrated by bush to one-ups his dad... or somesuch similar explanation. now what? what is solution for getting out of iraq? simply pull out and let the natives fix the mess?

 

Now what indeed? Bush has no plans for our eventual withdrawal from Iraq; or if he does, he's yet to share it with us. I don't want to see this country permanently occupying Iraq, so somebody had better figure out a way to either jump-start the Iraqi government... and I use the term loosely... into dealing with the problems of their own country effectively. Failing that then yes, we will eventually have to leave. Americans cannot afford to indefinitely fund Iraq's domestic needs and act as a free police force. McCain, God love him, has not explained to my satisfaction how he expects to extricate us from Iraq. He seems perfectly happy with the way it's going. Well, the majority of Americans are not the least bit happy about it, and that stance will lose him votes in the end. It lost him my vote, and I have always admired heck out of the guy.

 

is not near as simple as Di seems to wanna make it. would be nice if we could point to one guy, like bush, and say, "that clown is responsible for this whole mess." bush is a yutz. am not pro-bush by any stretch of the imagination. still amazes Gromnir that the democrats were so incompetent that they couldn't beat out bush's second term run at the Presidency. even so, given our system o' government, the President is never quite as responsible for foreign policy or domestic economic success and blunders as is typically believed... 'cept in Real war times.

 

Of course it's not simple, and it would take more than a forum post to even touch on the vagaries in play then and now. Thing is, I do blame Bush for Iraq. Anyone who listened to his campaign speeches in 1999 knew that toppling Saddam was a priority with him. Once he won the election, he brought in a cabinet itching for Saddam's blood, and after 9/11 he had the fear card he needed to convince a ridiculously stupid congress to go along. Using, I might add, evidence that was at best faulty and at worst manufactured. I have no idea why Tony Blair jumped on the bandwagon, but he has already paid the ultimate political price for his part in the debaucle.

 

Looks like the only thing we agree on is that neither of us can fathom how the hell Bush got reelected in 2004. I suspect the total lack of organization and resulting chaos of the current democratic primary process is the biggest clue.

[Gromnir]

"You disagree that our foray into Mogadishu is not comparable to a 5-year-and-rising full-blown war and occupation? That surprises me."

 

shouldn't surprise you as we already noted that the scope were different, but the mistakes and the resulting bloodshed were very much similar.

 

and the term "phony" for the brit intel is maybe more than a little misleading. again, mistakes were made and proper follow up never took place, and certain aspects of certain reports were given undue prominence. "inadvertently misled" were the terminology we recall, and various folks were absolved of any intentional or malicious wrongdoing. and again, is pretty much a fact that higher ups close to saddam were seemingly fooled too. reducing blair's ouster to so-called phony evidence is a big oversimplification. let us not spin this too much, eh? the notion that bush were somehow able to overpower the intelligence and free will of many people in the brit and US govts respectively requires a kinda mental gymnastics that we simply ain't capable of doing.

 

is nice and convenient to blame one man and come up with neat and tidy explanations, but rarely does things turn out so simple and straightforward.

 

getting in weren't as simple as you suggest, and getting out won't be as simple as you want neither... whether it is republican or democrats at the helm.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[babydol]

Ok, so this is offensive in SO many ways, but I just had to share a pic I found while surfing the net this weekend:

And yes, I'm immature enough that I laugh when I see this.

[Pidesco]

That's just so awesome.

[walkerguy]

 

Edited April 28, 2008 by walkerguy

[Pidesco]

That's just not awesome.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

That's pathetic.

[walkerguy]

Your post? Yes, I know.

 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

At least I did not post a badly photoshopped picture in an attempt to one-up another posting.

[walkerguy]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Edited April 28, 2008 by walkerguy

[Moatilliatta]

Obama seems to have a Mr. T haircut in that picture.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Sand]

Ok, so this is offensive in SO many ways, but I just had to share a pic I found while surfing the net this weekend:

And yes, I'm immature enough that I laugh when I see this.

 

Yes, but I am confused. What does bras for men and garden implements have to do with Obama and Clinton?

[Guard Dog]

Neither of those were funny. This one is funny, it was sent to me by one of my friends in Dennmark. Evidently it's been making the e-mail rounds there.

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election in the US.

 

On one side, you have a b***h who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, running against a lawyer who is married to a b***h who is a lawyer.

 

On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big t**s who owns a beer distributorship.

 

Is there a really contest here?"

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Obama seems to have a Mr. T haircut in that picture.

Yeah, done by Him B. Neo-Con.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[walkerguy]

Indiana + N Carolina = Eight Days

[SteveThaiBinh]

Is that actually going to settle anything at all? I can't even summon up the interest to google this anymore. When is the convention anyway?

[Guard Dog]

Is that actually going to settle anything at all? I can't even summon up the interest to google this anymore. When is the convention anyway?

Not a thing. Unless one candidate or the other wins a crushing victory (75% or better) it will go all the way to the convention in a dead heat. The superdelegates will decide this no matter how the next six primaries go anyway. The convention is in August.

[Sand]

Well, I just hope the superdelegates go the way of the regular delegates, regardless of who is on top, otherwise the whole process has proven to be one big pointless exercise. In either case if Hilary gets the nominee I'm voting McCain.