Damn, 17 good posts before the hijack.
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.
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).
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 ?
Preach it! Mmmm-hmmm. Amen!
MeanJoe
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.
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.
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.
Quick response to schplebordnik
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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!
Babylon 5 fan by any chance? 
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.
Well, of course. They don’t like the idea of a President Clark…