The Next President

As South Carolina clears things up some, I have to admit I know less about the Republican candidates than Democratic. I trust the points of view in this MB. Who is your vote going towards and why should I vote for him ?

Rest assured I will be casting my vote when the time comes in November.


------------------
"Love seeketh not itself to please, nor for itself hath any care, but for another gives its ease, and builds a Heaven in Hell's despair." - William Blake

[David B]

Unfortunately, my vote will probably be going to Gore because I see him as the lesser of two evils (Bush being the greater). One of the most important things a president does is appointing of Supreme Court justices. I suspect at least one, if not several, will be dropping off the Court in the next four years. I would much rather have Gore than Bush appointing replacements. I value the First Amendment and Bush does not. I value pro-choice and Bush does not. Gore certainly isn't perfect and will probably appoint a justice with whom I have other disagreements, but the two I have listed are amongst the most important to me, so I have little choice but to vote for Gore instead of Bush.

[Surgoshan]

Good idea, Gabriel, very good idea. I, too, have no idea who I should vote for, and, if this thread survives, will be reading this for the next nine months.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[DoctorJ]

David B. has summed up my position nicely. As much as I hate "lesser evil" politics, my vote will not be for Al Gore as much as it will be against Dubya.

If I were really voting for the best candidate, I would probably pick Ralph Nader (assuming he runs on the Green ticket again). However, I and many others hope he doesn't run, since the best he can do is take votes away from Gore in what could be a close race.

Dr. J

[ruadh]

I used to vote Democrat in presidential elections, basing my decision, like David B., in large part on the appointment of Supreme Court justices. No longer. The whole appointment process is so politicized now, I doubt that anyone too far from the center would ever get on the bench. I just don't think that Gore's and Bush's appointments would really be that different.

Besides, look at how the recent appointments have behaved on the bench. Bush Sr., a man so devoted to the First Amendment he once claimed that atheists weren't patriots and insisted public schools should have the right to force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, appointed David Souter, one of the First Amendment's best friends on the current Court. And both Clinton appointees voted to uphold that random drug testing policy we're discussing in a couple other threads.

It's not that I don't see any value in basing a vote on Supreme Court appointments; I'm sure Gore would never nominate a Clarence Thomas, for example. I just don't see much value in it.

I'm still undecided for November. If it looks like a close race, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Gore. If not, I'll go third party. Just haven't decided which one yet.

[Erratum]

My current feeling is that if McCain is the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I probably won't vote. Bush is too much of a weasel. I also dislike how he's cozying up to the Religious Right. He seems to think that he deserves to be president, which I find insulting and disrespectful to the voters, and he is basically saying that anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of "big tax cuts now" is not a good person. I disagree with McCain on a lot of social issues like abortion, but he at least is talking the most sensibly (in my opinion) about tax cuts and paying down the debt, and he also seems (to me) to be the most trustworthy and honorable person in the race. He also has said quite clearly (in stark contrast to GWB) that he will use the veto power of the president to stop wasteful pork-filled spending bills.

[David B]

Ruadh said:The whole appointment process is so politicized now, I doubt that anyone too far from the center would ever get on the bench.You really think that if Bush wins and the GOP maintains control of Congress, he won't appoint a pro-voucher, anti-church/state separation, anti-abortion justice? The reason the past ones have had to be more towards the center is because we have had opposing parties in control of Congress and the White House. If the GOP holds all the cards, watch out for your rights, 'cus they're going out the window. (Incidentally, if the Dems controlled all the cards, other rights would go out the window instead.)I just don't think that Gore's and Bush's appointments would really be that different.I do. And in the areas that most concern me, I'd have to side with Gore against Bush.

Incidentally, I do agree with your last statement about voting third-party (probably Libertarian) if Gore somehow has it all locked up. But I don't think that will happen.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by David B:
You really think that if Bush wins and the GOP maintains control of Congress, he won't appoint a pro-voucher, anti-church/state separation, anti-abortion justice?

I expect he'll appoint a justice who leans right. I don't expect he'll appoint an ideologue. Clinton had a Democratic majority in the Senate when he made his appointments and they're hardly flaming lefties.

If the GOP appears to be heading for a huge Senate majority (which, at this point, they don't) I'll reconsider, but as long as there's enough of a Democratic opposition to give Bush a hassle about his nominees I don't see any real extremists getting on the bench.

[Liberal]

I think Gore will be the next president. I think he will beat Bush like a drum in the debates, even worse than Clinton beat Dole.

Not that I'm particularly excited about it. I mean, the First Amendment's cool, I guess, but having the right to scream, "Stop!" while you're being raped is of little consequence.

[tracer]

When the California primaries roll around on March 7th, I'll be voting for John McCain. Not because I intend to vote for McCain in the general election if he wins -- I do not intend to do so -- but because I don't want G.W. Bush to have a shot at the White House.

It was either that or vote for Bill Bradley (I don't want Gore to be the next president either).

[David B]

Ruadh said:I expect he'll appoint a justice who leans right. I don't expect he'll appoint an ideologue. Clinton had a Democratic majority in the Senate when he made his appointments and they're hardly flaming lefties.And Clinton isn't exactly a flaming lefty, either. While Bush isn't as far right as some of the GOP would like, he does have the former director of the Christian Coalition working on his staff (Ralph Reed)!

And it doesn't really matter if the Repubs have 51% or 60% of the Senate -- they still can pass whoever Bush appoints, whether or not the Dems try to raise an issue about it.

[gEEk]

Originally posted by David B:
Unfortunately, my vote will probably be going to Gore because...I value the First Amendment and Bush does not...

Hmmm, I was about to make the same argument, but reversing the candidates and susbstituting "Second" for "First".

gEEk

[tracer]

Yeah, that's basically the dilemma I faced with the last California Governor election, too. "If the Democrat guy wins, I lose my gun rights, but if the Republican guy wins, I lose my abortion rights." So, I just voted for the Libertarian guy. Which is probably what I'll do in the Presidential General Election this fall.

[mangeorge]

I know I'm gonna get yelled at for this, but, given the opportunity, I'd have to vote for Clinton again. Talk about desperate! Failing that, I'll probably have to settle for Gore.
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

[Surgoshan]

Here's (http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/index.html) a nice little site a hallmate showed me.

basically, you state your opinion on a number of issues and it tells you how you rank the candidates.

For instance, my hallmate, after entering his views, agreed with 92% of Alan Keyes platform. I'm 70% in favor of Bill Bradley, then David McEntyre, then Al Gore. My God, I'm a leftist.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[Surgoshan]

Of course, it's not David McEntyre, it's David McReynolds, the Socialist.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[Liberal]

Surg. The link. She's broke.

[Pantology]

Here ya go, Lib:

http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/index.html

Incidently, I got that by clicking the "Reply with Quote" button on the post with the link.


------------------
"The true founder of civil society was the first man who fenced in a piece
of land, thought of saying 'This is mine,' and came across people simple
enough to believe him."
--"Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[longhair75]

good evening friends,

love the political discussion!

i am still an undecided voter. i would like to see a choice between mr. mccain and mr. bradley, but i fear that we will have the choice of mr. bush or mr. gore.

with the current control of the house and senate in the hands of teh republicans, i will most likely vote democrat. i stated in another thread that i am uncomfortable with the idea of either party controlling the house, senate and the white house.



------------------
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity -Kahlil Gibran

[Vladimir Rozitis]

The next President should be Bill Bradley, I think. However, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'd still pick Al Gore over any of the Republicans.

Vlad

[RTFirefly]

Of the remaining major candidates, anyone but Dubya. While I'll undoubtedly vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination (Gore; Bradley's been toast since NH), I wouldn't be troubled by a McCain presidency, even though I'm fully aware of how conservative he is, aside from tobacco and campaign finance.

To me, the role of money in politics is so threatening to the integrity of our political system that it would be worth putting up with four years of a McCain presidency with respect to every other issue, if he can do something about this one. Congress routinely puts the interests of artificial persons ahead of real ones because of the money, and that just ain't right, IMO.

------------------
"Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head." - F. Scott Firesign

[Johnny L.A.]

My problem is that I'm Pro-Choice.

Gore and Bradley are anti-pro-choice when it comes to our 2nd Ammendment rights.

Bush and McCain are anti-choice when it comes to abortion.

Anyone remember the Parent's Music Recources Committee? They wanted to erode out 1st Ammendment rights by telling us what kind of music we can listen to. The hearings were probably the only time the likes of Frank Zappa and John Denver would be of similar mind. Tipper Gore headed the PMRC. No doubt she had the support of Al Gore.

Tracer summed it up nicely. But there's no chance a Libertarian (or Independent) will win, so a vote for one of them is a vote tossed away. The alternative is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Since more people seem to be Pro-Choice on abortion than they are on other issues, I think that bans on abortion are unlikely no matter who wins; but a ban on firearms is more likely if Gore wins.

[David B]

Johnny, I agree with what you've said, but if the Congress remains Republican, it is more likely that a GOP president will be able to get his particular anti-choice agenda through than it would be for a Dem to get his anti-choice agenda through.

[Surgoshan]

David, mustn't forget, though, the tendancy of Presidential elections to sway Congressional elections. ALl of the house and a third of the Senate will be up for election this year. It's called 'riding the coattails'. Basically, whoever wins the Presidency may face a friendly Congress.

Of course, that only works at the beginning of a President's first term.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[tracer]

Johnny L.A. wrote:

Gore and Bradley are anti-pro-choice when it comes to our 2nd Ammendment rights.


Just remember: the federal courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit the states from banning firearms, and that it doesn't prevent the government at any level (including the Federal level) from banning the sale or transfer of firearms, and that it doesn't prevent the government at any level (including the Federal level) from banning firearms of a type other than those used by a well-regulated militia.

Conversely, the federal courts have also ruled that the Fourth Amendment does prevent all levels of government from banning abortions -- at least until the end of the first trimester. So even if an anti-abortion candidate did take office, any laws (s)he passed banning (first-trimester) abortions would get thrown out as unconstitutional -- the only ways an anti-abortion politician could clear this judicial roadblock would be to (A) get anti-abortion justices onto the U.S. Supreme Court, or (B) amend the Federal constitution.

We now return you to our presidential debate, already in progress.

[aschrott]

I like Bill Bradley. He leans the way I do on a lot of issues without losing sight of realism. A lot of his positions strike me as simple common sense rather than calculated political postures designed to excite particular interest groups. That's probably why he'll never get elected.

------------------
"I don't get any smarter as I get older--Just less stupid" -my dad

[mangeorge]

Made up my mind. I'm voting for Ralph Nader this time, like I should have last election.
Peace,
mangeorge

[even sven]

Gotta go with Nader. All the others either dont support abortion rights (an instant no in my book) or are just kind of wimpy. Besides you can't beat the name. President Ralph...and it rhymes with Darth Vader.

[PunditLisa]

Johnny, IIRC, the Parent's Music Resource Center's goal was to put labels on music to inform parents if the music contained violent imagery, sexually explicit lyrics, etc. I fail to see how this has impeded your right to buy music.

On the presidential race, I cannot find ANY candidate who supports: narrower abortion laws (e.g. no third trimester abortions and restricted second trimester abortions), radical campaign reform, the abolition of the current tax code, supports school vouchers, stricter gun control, the death penalty but opposes "hate crime" legislation, AND has a chance of winning the election.

The candidate that came the closest (John Hagelin) hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning. John McCain is the closest candidate that has a decent chance of winning, but I get a feeling that W. will ultimately beat him in the primaries.

W. v. Gore? Hmmm. I guess it'll depend on who their running mate is. If Elizabeth Dole gets the nod, I'm voting for W. Otherwise, I guess I'll vote for Gore though I'm pretty annoyed that the Democrats couldn't find a candidate with a pulse.

[Bluepony]

As a moderate Democrat, McCain gets my vote, for now. Bush Jr. scares me because of his affiliation with certain right-wing Christian groups. That was a classic PR move by Bush to speak at a college that forbids interracial dating and calls Roman Catholics (like me) a "cult". I look forward to Bush's next speech at a local cross-burning.

Gore and Bradley have got the dreaded "Liberal" sticker getting ready to be slapped on their heads. Fortunately Bradley is fading into the distance, giving Gore (the Dan Quayle of the Democrats) an easy shot for the nomination.

In the dreaded Devil's Choice between Bush and Gore, having faith in the American political system where the bullshit is much lighter than cream, I will probably pop a beer, sit on the patio deck and sit this puppy out.



------------------
...send lawyers, guns, and money...

Warren Zevon

[Mr.Zambezi]

anyone notice that Gore spoke to a jewish congrteation and the women and children were forced to sit outside?

BJU ( great name BTW I want to go to BJ univ.) may have some unsavory rules, but at least they let women in on important matters. Why didn't the media pick up on this little bit of sexism?
Could there possibly be media bias?

Count me down for Bush because 1) he has a more aggressive tax cutting plan, 2) he is to wishy washy to make abortion illegal, 3) Gore will increase taxes and spending to new levels, never before seen. Ditto Bradley.

[David B]

Just saw that McCain flamed the Christian Coalition: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000228/ts/politics_campaign_11.html

He's definitely turning positive in my eyes. (Just also saw that DoctorJ made reference to this already.)

Now, on to replies:

Surgoshan: Yes, I know about the president possibly swaying Congressional elections, but so far, I've seen little indication that even if Gore were to win, the Dems would take back all of Congress. On the other hand, if Bush wins, it seems highly likely the GOP would retain control of all of Congress.

DoctorJ: Actually, Bush didn't "apologize" -- he never used that word in his letter. In fact, shortly after being called on his speech, he said he wouldn't apologize. He sent a letter and weasel-worded a bit, but never said it was wrong to speak there or anything like that.

GL, I agree that I don't think McCain will win the nomination. But, man, it would be nice to see him win now after telling the religious right to screw off!

Mr. Z: I hadn't heard about this. Where can I read more? Anyway, if true, it would not be terribly surprising at an Orthodox synagogue (for example), since that is the way they do things in that religion (keeping women separate from men). This is not the same as a university (which is supposed to be a place of learning) being anti-Catholic and forbidding interracial dating.

[Spoke]

Hey, did anybody else see Meet the Press last weekend. Jesse Ventura was on, and I caught the tail end of a question directed to him regarding John McCain. Again, I didn't catch all of the question, but it sounded like Ventura was being asked whether (if McCain lost the Republican nomination) Ventura would consider running on a ticket with McCain as an independent. Ventura did not rule it out, and voiced his admiration for McCain. (Again, assuming I heard the question correctly.)

Has anyone else heard any rumors along these lines. If anyone caught Meet the Press, did I hear what I thought I heard?

My personal choice is Gore. I agree with David that a critical issue to consider in this election is the slew of Supreme Court (and for that matter, lower court) appointments the next President may get to make. Personally, I don't want the Court veering any farther to the right than it already has.

From the perspective of wanting to see Gore elected, I would love to see a McCain/Ventura ticket on the ballot to draw off some conservative votes.

As between McCain and Bush, I would much rather see McCain nominated. Though McCain is far too conservative for my tastes (particularly on environmental issues) I could live with a McCain Presidency. At least there would be the prospect of real campaign finance reform. Bush, I fear, is too much a captive of Republican special interests. I may actually vote for McCain in the primary (Georgia has open primaries), as I would feel a whole lot better in November knowing that either Gore or McCain would wind up in office.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Dave, I am trying to find the info for you.

But you saidMr. Z: I hadn't heard about this. Where can I read more? Anyway, if true, it would not be terribly surprising at an Orthodox synagogue (for example), since that is the way they do things in that religion (keeping women separate from men). This is not the same as a university (which is supposed to be a place of learning) being anti-Catholic and forbidding interracial dating.

I find it much more offensive to say "women can't take part in any meaningfull discussions or decisions"

Than to say,

"different races shouldn't date."

the first is a complete belittleing of half the world's population (actually more if you count kids) and the second is a cultural suggestion. The second propostition does not state that any race is prohibited from engaging in important dialog. The first states that women are not allowed in the decision making process.

Personally, I find sexism to be more vile than racism.

All judgements aside and assuming that the two are equal, why was there no outrage from the press when a democrat was involved, but so much outrage when GWB was involved .Could the press be ::gasp:: BIASED?

[DoctorJ]

Bush finally apologized (in a letter to Cardinal O'Connor) for not speaking out about BJU's racist and anti-Catholic policies. Funny how he doesn't think to do this before the South Carolina primary, but does so before strongly Catholic New York goes to the polls. <Spock voice> Fascinating. </Spock voice>

McCain, on the other hand, gave a speech this morning in Virginia Beach telling the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell to piss off. I wish he'd stop giving me reasons to like him--saying all these nice things about a Republican just makes me feel so dirty. :)

It's nice to see I'm not the only Nader fan on the board. Someone around here made a comment a while back that I can agree with--I'm not sure this country deserves Ralph Nader.

Dr. J

------------------
"Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!" -Dr. Nick Riviera

[GLWasteful]

While I admire McCain for his campaign finance reform stance, there is absolutely no way in hell that he will secure the Republican nomination. That is my prognostication for the upcoming festivities.

Although, even with my admiration, I could never vote for the man. His stance on abortion is enough to dissuade me from that.

While I spent a lot of time feeling depressed that it looked like Shrub was going to be the next prez, things like his "aw shucks" appearance at BJU, and the fact that McCain has become a bigger adversary than originally thought have given me hope that he might just not win.

Me? I'll vote for Gore. I take enough abuse from the ghosts of Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman as it is, no point in making it worse.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[mangeorge]

So I guess it's not gonna be Ralph Nader, huh? :(
Peace,
mangeorge

[ruadh]

What do you mean mangeorge? Did he drop out of the race or something?

------------------
"Shut up! I'm having a rhetorical conversation!"

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by ruadh:
What do you mean mangeorge? Did he drop out of the race or something?



No, he's right here; http://www.votenader.com/
I just meant that I don't see a lot of support among my fellow SDMBer's
(Nudge, nudge)
Peace,
mangeorge

[Kyla]

I like Ralph Nader, but here in California, your vote only counts if you vote for a member of your party, and as I am a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Bradley. I don't expect him to win, though, and will vote for Gore in November.

I really hope that McCain ends up being the GOP candidate. I don't exactly love him or anything, but I HATE Bush. He's an idiot! McCain at least has a brain in his head.


------------------
~Harborina

"Don't Do It."

[ruadh]

Originally posted by mangeorge:
I just meant that I don't see a lot of support among my fellow SDMBer's
(Nudge, nudge)

Whew.

I just voted (by absentee ballot) for Nader yesterday.

------------------
"Shut up! I'm having a rhetorical conversation!"

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by Kyla:
I like Ralph Nader, but here in California, your vote only counts if you vote for a member of your party, and as I am a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Bradley. I don't expect him to win, though, and will vote for Gore in November.

I really hope that McCain ends up being the GOP candidate. I don't exactly love him or anything, but I HATE Bush. He's an idiot! McCain at least has a brain in his head.




But if Nader gets 5% of the national vote, the Green Party gets a bunch of public funding. That could mean serious contenders in local and some state elections.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Polycarp]

Ah, one of you is discussing the sky as being blue, and the other the greenness of the grass. Kyla is, I believe, speaking of the upcoming Democratic primary; Mangeorge, of the general election.

I sympathize with Mangeorge; as Kermit said....

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by Polycarp:
Ah, one of you is discussing the sky as being blue, and the other the greenness of the grass. Kyla is, I believe, speaking of the upcoming Democratic primary; Mangeorge, of the general election.

I sympathize with Mangeorge; as Kermit said....

Arghh... I gotta know what, What did Kermit say? :confused:
Peace,
mangeorge

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

"It's not easy being green."

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by The Peyote Coyote:
"It's not easy being green."

:D Oh yeah. I forgot about that. Or didn't make the connection. Thanks.
Peace,
mangeorge