PDA

View Full Version : Republicans... which Democrat would you prefer in the Presidency ?


Rashak Mani
01-20-2004, 09:53 PM
So SMDB Republicans... if you had to elect one of the Democratic nominees to the Presidency of the USA instead of Bush Jr. which one would you prefer ? Which one would you hate most ?

Indicate what kind of Republican you are too... Neo-Con... Regular Rep... or mildly so. Also indicate why you would chose/hate that specific Democrat ? Curious to know what the other side thinks of the nominees... not that they are anything great to talk about.

MeanJoe
01-21-2004, 12:16 AM
Well, to begin with I would call myself a conservative republican. Many of my friends, ranging from centrist Democrats to leftist liberals, would jokingly refer to me as the "nicest of the evil Republicans" or the "most liberal Republican" they've ever met. Always makes me wonder if I've been complimented or insulted. :eek:

I would also say that I am certainly a conservative republican looking for a viable alternative to voting for Bush. I am not venomously anti-Bush but I am significantly disappointed over many things that I feel warrant looking "outside the party" this year. Thus, I am feeling out the various candidates so I cannot say who I would be willing to vote for at this point. I can say who I would not be willing to vote for, Howard Dean.

That being said, here's my thoughts on the rest of the crowd.

Kerry - I like his service to the country in both the military and government. I think he has excellent credentials to compete in this race. I would rather prick hairs from my nose than listen to him speak. Yes, that is hardly a qualification for President but damn, he exhibits the enthusiasm of a bowl of jello.

Edwards - I have not heard or paid attention to his campaign much but I do find his approach in Iowa very refreshing and as a result will spend time now getting to know where he is coming from.

Kerry & Edwards - I think on several issues I will disagree with both of their more left-leaning positions, perhaps strongly, so that may impact if I'd vote for either of them or not. I'll be weighing that choice very heavily against my concerns over another 4 years of President Bush.

Clark - Similar to Kerry, I like his service to the country in the military. As a "conservative" I cannot deny that his shaky (or new?) allegance to the Democratic Party is also a plus to me. I cannot imagine him coming out hard-left on a lot of issues. It is well beyond the time however that he can continue to be excused for getting a late start and poor organization. He's been in the race long enough now that he should have his act together much better. NH this week will answer a lot of questions for me on Clark.

Lieberman - Also like Clark, his more centrist leanings appeal to me as a conservative. However, I think he is toast so.... next!

Kucinich - Looney.... next!

Sharpton - Not even worth the time to try to address.... next!

Gephardt - So long and thanks for the fish! Next! Oh, nevermind that only leaves Dean and I'll vote for Bush twice before I'd vote for Dean.


not that they are anything great to talk about.

Sadly, this is very true in yet another Presidental election.

lt180ml
01-21-2004, 12:23 AM
I consider myself a Republican--this'll be the first election when I get to vote--and frankly, I'm confused, despite having what I thought was a fairly firm grip on politics.

First, I hadn't thought about it that much, since not being a Democrat, I can't vote in the Democratic primary. (I think--correct me if I'm wrong.)

Second, is it just me, or are all the Democrats trying to cater to us dissatisfied Republicans, or what? The general Democratic rhetoric at the moment seems more right-wing than it's been in past years. I'm not sure how much I'd trust any of them since they seem to be tailoring their platforms to disgruntled GOP voters. They know that we're a huge group--the middle and the extreme right have all hated Bush at one point or another in his term, and pretty well everyone thinks he's an incompetent politician. He's an incompetent user of the English language, for that matter.

Guess that doesn't answer the question too well. If I may be allowed to rephrase your question:

If Democrat X was running against Bush, who would I vote for? Probably not Bush. We'll see in November.

Basically, I think I'd pick the Democratic candidate with the best grip on political manuevering, especially internationally--Iraq occupation, etc. I predict Democratic agendas will be farther right than usual, anyway, to take advantage of the situation. The only unfortunate thing for the Democrats about this race is that there's so many viable candidates--if there were a clear frontrunner getting all the publicity, he'd have a better shot against Bush.

Marley23
01-21-2004, 12:33 AM
A couple of states allow you to vote in the primary of the opposing party; most don't. I think Arizona is one.

It's not unusual that the Democrats are appealing to swing voters. You can't just preach to the choir if you want to win. I think this is, generally speaking, a solidly Democratic group - Lieberman aside, I wouldn't call any of them faux-Republicans.

I don't think "so many" is a big problem. The number is now four (and really, it was four before Monday as well). Within a couple of weeks, it'll be less than that.

SnoopyFan
01-21-2004, 02:39 PM
If I HAD to pick one, probably Edwards. He's ran a decent campaign and strikes me as coolheaded and hundreds of times more mature than his competitors. Second choice would be Lieberman.

The absolute WORST would be Wesley Clark. He's a #*%(#&%* psychopath, and an intelligent one at that which makes him even more dangerous. Second worse would be Dean, who's a dumbass but still nuts.

Shodan
01-21-2004, 03:03 PM
Lieberman is the only Democrat I could vote for with a straight face. I did one of those candidate-matching websites that was mentioned in Siege's thread on which Democrat to vote for, and Lieberman came closer than any other Democrat to matching my views.

The worst? I don't know if you consider Sharpton as a real candidate, but he would be the worst of the lot if he had any chance of being elected (which he does not).

Of the "real" candidates, Kucinich is dead last. Another airheaded, loony socialist masquerading as a Democrat. Also unelectable, fortunately.

Of the front-runners, Dean has been showing some mildly unstable behavior of late, but he is not as bad as Clark. Clark strikes me as a political whore - no genuine core principles, less than honest, but willing to support whatever will get him elected. Much like Slick Willy - no wonder Hilary likes Clark.

I know nothing much about Edwards. Kerry and Gephardt seem like clones to me - standard issue Democratic pols with nothing to distinguish them from anyone else.

FWIW.

Regards,
Shodan

TeaElle
01-21-2004, 03:50 PM
I've been thinking on this because of the SelectSmart.com survey thingies which tell you which candidate's platform is closest to your own ideals. Despite the fact that I am a signed, sealed, delivered Bush voter I did the survey thing in late November and got one result and took it again this afternoon and got an entirely different result.

I take it that this change is due to candidates dropping out of the race and waffling on positions as they face the scrutiny of caucuses and votes which are actually happening instead of mere figments of the future.

In November, I was advised that my closest Dem match would be Edwards followed by Clark. Today, I was suddenly told that my matches were Kerry followed by Kucinich (!!) and I was hornswaggled.

If I had to vote for any of the crop, it'd be Edwards simply because he has not, to my knowledge, gone negative (towards other Dems or vitriolically toward Bush) nor has he done much waffling. He's always struck me as a straight shooter and a decent sort of fellow. Also, in the long run, it seems that if anyone has a chance, it's the Southern statesman type, not the northeastern arrogant types (Kerry and Dean) or the veracity-challenged military man (Weasley Clark) nor the troll (Kucinich).

But reality says -- if I couldn't vote for Bush, I wouldn't vote. None of them really deserves my support and wouldn't get it unless something extraordinary and beyond imagination happens between now and November.

Age Quod Agis
01-21-2004, 06:42 PM
Don't know if I count as a Republican, but as someone leaning toward Bush, I'll answer, too.

If either Lieberman or Edwards gets the nod, I'd seriously consider voting for one of them. I wouldn't vote for any of the rest over Bush.

I took the survey Shodan's talking about, and Lieberman matched my views 73% of the time. Don't know how reliable the survey was, but I was pleased by that fact.

In my opinion:

Kerry reminds me of Lurch, from the Addam's Family, in looks and temperament. Unfortunately, his positions on the issues have not been so steady.

Dean is a single-issue candidate (Iraq), and I disagree with him on that issue.

Clark strikes me as a guy that will do or say anything to get ahead. I'm grateful for his military service, but I doubt I'd vote for him because I wouldn't know what I'm getting. I suspect he'd govern by the polls, rather than being burdened with a vision for the country.

Sharpton -- I don't want to like Sharpton, but the guy is very charismatic. The debates are certainly a lot more fun with him cutting up and making quips. I strongly suspect he's in the race simply to increase his ability to broker power, but I enjoy watching the race more with him in it.

Kucinich [spit take]

Sam Stone
01-21-2004, 07:41 PM
Clark is politically tone-deaf as well. He made a big mistake yesterday - he belittled John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam, saying something like, "Yes, he was a hero as a junior officer, but I took four rounds in Vietnam and I am a General."

This, by the way, strikes at why his fellow Generals dislike the man so much. Generals just don't say things like that. Not about genuine war heros, they don't. Clark was looking for a way to make his military service more legitimate than Kerry's, and he stepped over a line.

litost
01-21-2004, 08:12 PM
What's this about being too deadpan and too angry? The next president has come down to superficial disposition. May be we should genetically combine Kerry and Dean.

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
01-21-2004, 09:38 PM
Can we raise Paul Tsongas from the dead?

OttoDaFe
01-21-2004, 10:12 PM
Can we raise Paul Tsongas from the dead?I was a Tsongas backer 'way back when, and I'd drink to that . . . but you'd have to stop him spinning in his grave over the deficit situation first.

elfkin477
01-21-2004, 10:16 PM
So SMDB Republicans... if you had to elect one of the Democratic nominees to the Presidency of the USA instead of Bush Jr. which one would you prefer ? Which one would you hate most ?

Indicate what kind of Republican you are too... Neo-Con... Regular Rep... or mildly so. Also indicate why you would chose/hate that specific Democrat ? Curious to know what the other side thinks of the nominees... not that they are anything great to talk about.


I guess I'm a more or less a "regular" republican, except for the fact that I wish the religious part of our party would stop insisting that they speak for all of us- they don't- and that I don't think gay marriage is a bad thing. (more people should be married. I don't care if they're husband and wife, or husband and husband or wife and wife...commitment is commitment) Other than that, I agree with most of the platform.

If I were to vote for a dem, I'd vote for Lieberman (and if he won the dem nod, I might vote for him instead of Bush) I'm not sure why he's a democrat, since he seems pretty conservative to me. Alas, he'd never win, though.

Most hated? Kerry. I think we all may die if he's in charge of national security.

Tell me something, back in mid-to-late September of 2001, was it national news that he'd received warnings in the spring and summer of that year about the security issues at Logan? That he was warned something like 9/11 was waiting to happen? I know it was all over the local news, but then, I watch the Boston and Manchester stations, so sorting local from national is a little difficult. Since he didn't make much of an effort to defend himself from the charges, it seems that they're probably true. And he has commercials about protecting national security! :rolleyes:

I'm not terribly fond of Dean either, but he's not as bad as Kerry. You know, though, there might be something to the old saw about familiarity breeding contempt; since they're so close to my own state, they've gotten far more coverage over the years they've been in office than any of the other runners.

Brutus
01-21-2004, 10:32 PM
Hi! My name is Brutus, and I am a Neo-Con.


Another vote for Lieberman. Seems like a sensible enough fellow when it comes to matters of security and foreign policy, though he comes with the standard package of do-good Demmy domestic plots. #1 on my list.

Kerry gets props for being a badass snake-eater back in 'Nam, but deductions for hucking his medals. (Or some borrowed medals, whatever.) I don't cotton much to protester folk. #2 on my list.

If only Clark was not so frigging imbalanced, I may be able to form a view on him. As it is, he seems to be bouncing around all over the place. Still, he rates #3 on my list.

Edwards? I frigging hate lawyers (SDMB lawyers excepted, of course.) Tort reform and malpractice reform are high on my list, and I don't see a part of the problem supporting the solution.

Dean is cool, in a 'Holy shit, I bet he is going to go nuts and a ram the microphone through his skull' sort of way, but he seems to have lost it during the elections. Too bad, from what little I know of him as governor, he seemed OK.

Kucinich? What a loon.

Sharpton? Black David Duke of the Dems.

In all fairness, I would rather not vote than vote for a Democrat, assuming GW did something to really piss me off (extend the AW Ban, for instance.) Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can just not vote, and claim a moral victory, if nothing else?

schplebordnik
01-21-2004, 11:41 PM
Edwards? I frigging hate lawyers (SDMB lawyers excepted, of course.) Tort reform and malpractice reform are high on my list, and I don't see a part of the problem supporting the solution.

As an SDMB lawyer, you can feel free to hate me!

Edwards is a snake oil salesman par excellence. Lots of med mal contingency fee lawyers are shady characters, and The Breck Girl is top of the heap. Read this article: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL20040120a.html Guy made millions skimming 25-40% off of med malpractice jury verdicts based on bogus science. And this is the guy that's going to solve the problem of inability of people to get health care? Hell, he's the problem!

I'd vote of hybrid of Sharpton (for the speaking ability and sense of humor), Lieberman (foreign policy), Dean (despite his reacent attempts to the contrary, he'll keep religion out of politics). None of the candidate seem to have any props on fiscal displine. But that includes GW Bush with the Medicare benefit extension, Moon/Mars pork projects, etc., etc.

I'm a Libertarian, and a weak Republican because of GW's bible thumping and Ashcroft's total lack of respect for federalism and individual freedoms (and bible thumping, too).

Tee
01-22-2004, 12:17 AM
I third Paul Tsongas.

I have a hard time taking Dean seriously, though I know he's very popular. I know very little about Clark to form an opinion and knew nothing about Edwards except where he was from. Until now. "One of America's wealthiest trial lawyers." Fantastic.

I respect Lieberman's positions on things even when disagreeing with him. Not enough to want to see him President though. Gephardt I could live with as President. He's out though.

Carol Moseley-Braun is out, but I found myself agreeing with some things she had to say on domestic issues. Sorry to see her go for that reason - actual issues being discussed.

I loathe John Kerry. He's been my Senator for years, and I'm not sure if he actually stands for anything but the Democratic Party itself and his own ambitions within it. Any admiration for his Vietnam service I might have had has long been squashed, because he's been using it for political capital for thirtyodd years. For that I think Clark is entirely within his rights to campaign on his.

I'm a liberal-type Republican. Like Brutus I'd rather not vote at all than vote Democrat this year.

FriarTed
01-22-2004, 12:42 AM
Conservative Republican, mild Religious Rightist, 95%ProLifer~

Lieberman for sure!

Kerry doesn't bother me too much.

Clark is way too erratic.

Don't know much about Edwards.

Dean, Sharpton, Kucinish- forget it.

Still, I'm very ProBush.

Bruce_Daddy
01-22-2004, 09:41 AM
I'm not sure I either understand or prescribe to labels like Neo-Con, but I'm a very conservative guy who is none to happy with Bush so the following may not be far into fantasy land.

I'd vote for Edwards for a couple of reasons, some of which are lame. He went to the same college I did and is from NC (I live in SC). He isn't a loony like Dean (YEAAAARGG!!!) but maybe a little slicky. Liberman would be a close second, he seems to be a sensible guy.

If Bush doesn't quit fucking around (spending, immigrants, healthcare) I will be voting for Edwards or Liberman if they make it.

kwildcat
01-22-2004, 03:39 PM
Sorry to butt in, I realize Rashak is soliciting GOP opinions. But felt compelled to point out an obvious (hopefully) inconsistency:

George W. Bush is not actually a practicing conservative.

-trade protectionism, but only for industries that are big political contributors (steel tariffs, administration's position on GATT and WTO negotiations)
-corporate subsidies, especially for industries that are big political contributors (energy sector, major air carriers)
-increasing the size of bureaucracy (the first new federal department, Homeland Security, in over a generation)
-runaway spending (average of 13%-per-year increases in federal budget, but hidden from the books by Enronian accounting and "supplemental" budgetary items. $87 billion for Iraq, anyone?)
-entitlements (Medicare prescription drug reform, which we all know was just a ploy to try to influence the senior vote in '04)
-states rights and judicial autonomy (Ashcroft's sentencing "recommendations" for prosecutors, "No Child Left Behind", fast-tracking approval for development of National Park lands to states cannot sue on the basis of environmental impact, the "Defense of Marriage" B.S. proposed this past Tuesday)

If any of you true-blue conservatives and libertarian types are freaked by this litany of bad ideas, then I encourage you to at the very least stay home and claim a "moral victory" with Brutus. What you have to assess for yourselves is whether rank ideology, political pandering on an unprecedented scale, opportunism, and unprincipled power politics is sufficiently egregious to persuade you to vote GW out of office rather than let the decision be made without you.

XT
01-22-2004, 07:01 PM
Well, I'm neither a Republican nor a conservative, but I feel like playing anyway.

My number one choice would have been Lieberman...in fact, its who I would have voted for if he would have won the nomination most likely. Seemed to me to be the most level headed and centrist of the pack. He looks a bit like a starving squirel, which is the only down side to the man IMO.

Edwards would be next on my list. Seems to be a decent moderate with some good ideas, though I won't vote for him for various reasons. At least he LOOKS like presidental material.

Kerry...simply put, he has an incredibly big head (I don't mean he's arrogant...he literally has a large head). Still, big head and all, he's my number 3 guy.

Clark: Could have been a conten'da....if he wasn't such a nut. I would probably vote for Bush before Clark if it was a choice only between those two...Clark is on my dividing line between those I'm mildly interested in and those that I actively dislike. From here on out I'd most likely VOTE for Bush if the 'Crats were stupid enough to run any of these fools.

On the 'don't like em' list:

Kucinich: Total nut ball, and completely unelectable. He is (IMO) another of the ivory tower liberals always bouncing around. Even the Democrats wouldn't be stupid enough to put him up against Bush as he would lose big time.

Dean: This is the guy I figured the 'Crats would run. It surprises me that they look to be waking up to the fact that this guy is a loose canon that has almost no chance of beating Bush. This guy literally scares me...if he actually tried to keep half of his campaign promisses it would be a disaster IMO.

Sharpton: Just don't go there. Its not pretty.

-XT

Brutus
01-22-2004, 08:55 PM
Sorry to butt in, I realize Rashak is soliciting GOP opinions. But felt compelled to point out an obvious (hopefully) inconsistency...

Damn, 17 good posts before the hijack.

schplebordnik
01-22-2004, 10:42 PM
George W. Bush is not actually a practicing conservative.

Ain't never been any politician elected to any substantial office who is ideologically pure. Unless you can point to a dem who is more conservative, you're advocating not voting. What's the point of that.

Dubya's got lots of flaws to a libertarian, but question in my mind is are there other candidates out there less flawed. Not sure in the dem pack there is.

Sam Stone
01-22-2004, 11:11 PM
Being Canadian, I'm kind of outside the scope of this discussion, but I'll add a couple of thoughts anyway:

First, Conservatives should hope for a strong challenger to Bush, for a couple of reasons. As a Canadian, let me tell you that it SUCKS to have a one-party state. And look at the Republicans today - fat and happy. Majorities in both houses, and they've done diddly squat with it, other than spend money like drunken sailors. And because they aren't putting pressure on Bush, he's not compelled to do anything other than what Karl Rove tells him will be good for his election chances.

That's why Howard Dean needs to go away. Because if he takes his shouting match into a general election, not only will he get clobbered, he'll pull the Democrats down with him. If Dean gets nominated, I predict not just an easy Bush win, but further losses in both the House and Senate for Democrats.

On the principle that the strongest challenger is best for Democracy, you have to hope for either Edwards or Kerry, I think. Both of them are solid politicians with reasonable credentials, good temperaments, and the ability to appeal to aspects of the left and right.

My problem with Kerry is that I'm a serious space enthusiast, and he's one of those, "Let's fix out problems at home first" guys. He'd blow the budget on national health care, more benefits all around, and then taxes will be higher, the budget will still be busted, and the space program will be moribund.

Clark is a space nut like me. Grew up on science fiction, he says. Strongly advocates a Mars program and greatly increased funding to NASA. Plus, election pandering aside he's really a Republican at heart. I fully expect that he'll move way into the center if he wins the nomination, and would probably govern farther to the right than Clinton did. All of which would be okay in my book. I'd really, really like to like Clark.

But here's my problem with him: He's a snake. From what I can tell, he was a political general who was always ready to blame others for his own mistakes, step on those below him and kiss the ass of those above. His attempt to pull rank on Kerry was disgusting ("Sure, he was a hero, but a junior officer hero. I was a hero and a general"). It really bothers me that his superiors and peers almost universally dislike him. Military men tend to support each other, but in Clark's case they've been very careful to distance themselves from him. People I greatly respect, like Norman Schwartzkopf and Tommy Franks have gone on record saying that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they'd ever vote for the man. That should give anyone pause.

George Bush has been pissing me off recently. His state of the union speech stunk. All he offered was more spending. His claims to be fiscally responsible ring pretty hollow now. And the Republicans have been a big disappointment - they've taken an opportunity to really move some reforms in the last four years and squandered it. I'm beginning to think that Republicans are at the their best only when they are acting as a check on Democrats. Take away the Democrats, and what do the Republicans do? Pass spending bills and pander to the religious right. What happened to the Gingrich revolution? Where are the Republicans who want serious government reform? What happened to school choice, or balanced budgets, or regulatory reform? Not a peep from the pubs on any of this.

So if I were an American I'd be prepared to vote for a Democrat for the first time in my life, if a decent one came along. Maybe. Even if only to restore a split government with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in the House.

Unfortunately, at this point I'd still vote Bush, because none of the contenders are very interesting to me. But if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, it'd probably be Edwards. He strikes me as the most decent person who could possibly be elected. (My first choice would be Lieberman, but he doesn't have a chance IMO).

Rashak Mani
01-23-2004, 07:18 AM
So Sam Stone if the democrats lose badly in both the Senate and the House... you would think a Democratic President would be better in order to balance power ?

MeanJoe
01-23-2004, 08:12 AM
George Bush has been pissing me off recently. His state of the union speech stunk. All he offered was more spending. His claims to be fiscally responsible ring pretty hollow now. And the Republicans have been a big disappointment - they've taken an opportunity to really move some reforms in the last four years and squandered it. I'm beginning to think that Republicans are at the their best only when they are acting as a check on Democrats. Take away the Democrats, and what do the Republicans do? Pass spending bills and pander to the religious right. What happened to the Gingrich revolution? Where are the Republicans who want serious government reform? What happened to school choice, or balanced budgets, or regulatory reform? Not a peep from the pubs on any of this.


Preach it! Mmmm-hmmm. Amen!

MeanJoe

John Mace
01-23-2004, 08:21 AM
A few observations from last night's debate:

Kerry: Kept his momentum going, and did a pretty good job addressing the issues. Except-- I thought he did a terrible job defending his vote for the Iraq "War" resolution (or whatever it's officiallly called). His argument boiled down to "We authorized Bush to use force, but we didn't think he actually would". Look, if you made a mistake, just say so. You can blame it on Bush's shoddy intelligence (the CIA kind, that is :)) if you have to. The Dems could do a lot worse than nominating him, though. He seems like the most likely guy to give Bush a challenge, and I wouldn't have a huge problem with him if he got elected-- as long as the Pubs still had the Congress!

Lieberman: Poor guy. He reminded me of someone sliding down a cliff and trying to dig in with his fingernails. He might slow the decent, but he's a goner. Go home and get some rest. Then go back to the Senate where you can get something done.

Edwards: Good job of articulating the issues in a positive way, but not very good on specifics. (I could have missed some of his answers, though, as I did miss some portions of the debate.) I was a bit surprised he didn't understand the DoMA, but I think he honestly didn't understand it and wasn't trying to be evasive. He needs to clearly differentiate himself from Kerry. I'm left wondering: If the only difference between them is their level of experience, why would I vote for him over Kerry?

Dean: Back on message, and settled down a bit. Against the war and wants to raise taxes. I didn't get anything new. I agree with a lot of what Sam says about not wanting Dean to run against Bush, but it would be nice to have a clear referendum on those two issues (war, taxes).

Clark: I can't put my finger on what it is that bothers me about this guy. He doesn't seem to really want to be president. I don't see the passion that the other guys have. I'm very interested in what other people have to say about him.

Sharpton: Well, he's come along way since the Tawana Brawley (sp?) days... Good entertainment value, and I'm guessing his real goal is to be Mayor of NY.

which brings us to...

Kucinich: WTF? Besides the fact that I couldn't stop thinking how much he looked like Gollum, I just can't figure out what this guy is angling for. Reminds me of when people used to ask: "What does Jesse (Jackson) want?" Well, what does Dennis want? He's so far out on the loony fringe that I don't see him swaying the Dem platform one millimeter in the direction of his stated positions. And he's clearly said that he will support whichever Dem gets the nomination. Maybe he's thinking he'll run as a Green in '08. But... WTF? Maybe he's just trying to find a wife. The poor guy must have had the living sh*t kicked out of him in High School any number of times.

E-Sabbath
01-23-2004, 08:25 AM
Lieberman worries the heck out of me, simply because he's traditionally allowed his faith to interfere with his judgement.

He's heavily pro-censorship and anti-technology.

Basically, he _is_ Bush-Lite, in my honest opinion, and I don't know why he's not a republican.

Skammer
01-23-2004, 12:51 PM
Put me with FriarTed just to the left of the Religious Right. I've always considered myself a Republican because I was very pro- law and order, anti-abortion, and I actually thought faith-based initiatives was a good idea.

However, I'm also in favor of increased spending on education, health care and welfare, pro-environment, and pro-gun control. Anti-corporate welfare. So I thought if the right Democratic candidate came along, I would vote for him (or her).

Based on what I've seen, I would have chosen Lieberman first, then possibly Edwards or Kerry (I need to look at them more).

Then I took the SelectSmart.com survey, and they said my best matches were:
- Dean (69%)
- Kucinich (68%) :eek:
- Sharpton (65%) :eek: :eek: :eek: !!!

I, uh, have my doubts about that survey.

kwildcat
01-23-2004, 02:29 PM
Quick response to schplebordnik

1) There is a substantial and substantive difference between "ideological purity" (any absolutist point of view is dangerous, frankly) and a lack of adherence to the most basic, fundamental positions of a political movement. Take Christianity, for example - all kinds of Christians believing in different specific doctrines, but still Christians (even by the standards of competing denominations). But when a Christian stops believing in something basic, like, oh, I don't know - the divinity of Jesus Christ? - then they are no longer a Christian.

2) Actually, it was Brutus advocating not voting. If the Republican base is apathetic because of Dubya's betrayal of their core values, so much the better. Maybe next time there's a Republican presidential primary, they'll make a better choice.

3) If one is a wealthy, educated, corporate urbanite libertarian, then no - even a bad Bush is better than any Dem.
If one is a rural rancher libertarian in Montana (a stereotype, I know) who's being bankrupted by dropping beef prices because the export market doesn't trust the FDA's laissez faire attitude towards BSE (mad cow), who has to look out his living room window at the timber trucks or natural gas drilling derricks infesting the federal lands adjacent to his spread, then I suspect a moderate Democrat with rural roots and sensibilities like John Edwards might appeal.

schplebordnik
01-24-2004, 01:42 PM
...I suspect a moderate Democrat with rural roots and sensibilities like John Edwards might appeal.

A multimillionaire contingency fee med mal and personal injury lawyer has rural roots and sensibilities, just because he says his dad worked in a textile mill?

Hoo-boy, The Breck Girl's snake oil pitch really seems to be sticking!

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
01-24-2004, 05:10 PM
The absolute WORST would be Wesley Clark. He's a #*%(#&%* psychopath, and an intelligent one at that which makes him even more dangerous. Babylon 5 fan by any chance? :D

E-Sabbath
01-24-2004, 07:56 PM
http://www.isnnews.net/zocalo/jms.shtml

Wesley Clark may not be.

But Karl Rove and George Bush are.

I don't know. I don't think you're supposed to model yourself after Mr. Morden. But maybe that's just me.



Bruce had been at the White House about a month ago, in the company of wife Melissa Gilbert, president of the Screen Actors Guild, for a discussion with some of the functionaries there concerning acting roles moving north of the Canadian border.

As they're talking, in a long conference room, in the middle of the meeting the door oens and Karl Rove -- main strategist for the Republican Party and power behind the White House throne -- comes in. He says (paraphrased from memory) to Melissa, "I hope you'll forgive me, but I actually here to see Bruce."

He then tells Bruce, "I just wanted to tell you that I'm a big science fiction fan, and that Babylon 5 is the best science fiction television series *ever*."

Then there's a pause, and he adds....

"And the President thinks so too."

Upon hearing this, I went to lie down for a spell, but I fully expect to be back on my feet by Spring, latest.

jms

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
01-25-2004, 10:23 AM
But Karl Rove and George Bush are.Well, of course. They don't like the idea of a President Clark...