Well, as I said, he had an unprecedented time with a compliant GOP Congress on his side. And that got him his Iraq war and tax cuts. But how did he do on Social Security reform, immigration reform, or even his anti-SSM amendment?
His bona fides on abortion are weak by the standards of the religious right: about a decade ago, when he was running for Senator in Tennessee, he was widely described as a pro-choice Republican. He has since delcared himself to be opposed to abortion rights, but I doubt that’ll placate folks like Dobson, who’s aready publicly described Thompson as “not a Christian.”
That alone should do it. Basically, Thompson has an image that is just too tolerant and caring for the Religious Right – they want a closed-minded idiot like Dubya. Someone they can be sure of.
There are also problem with his advocacy of electoral reform at one time, and I think he’s a little to the left of Attila the Hun on immigration, and you know what that means.
Um, those initiatives were for banning gay marriage, not allowing it; and I’m pretty sure that nobody really thought that any would be defeated, which is why Arizona was such a surprise. Most of them were in fairly conservative states, IIRC, and it was disappointing but not shocking that people were that bigoted. Some states were landslides, like South Carolina and Tennessee, and some not quite as much, like Idaho, but Virginia, Wisconsin, and Colorado were at least a little close, and Arizona defeated a ban on same-sex marriage by 2%.
CO- no on Civil Unions by 6%, yes on SSM ban by 12%
ID-ban by 26%
SC-ban by 56%
TN-ban by 62%
VA-ban by 14%
WI-ban by 18%
source:CNN
I’m not saying a President has absolute power, just that the days when the President “can’t do much policy-wise without Congress” are over.
I think at least 2 out of 3 of the policies you mention above were never intended as actual policies, but just political showmanship. A lot of the policy work of a the Bush presidency has been changing environmental policy, foreign policy (especially CIA and State Department policies), food and drug policy, forest management policies, etc., all of which has been done without need for Congressional approval. If we add in the AUMF (which probably would have gotten Congressional approval with any Congress), you can add to that list Guantanamo, etc.
He didn’t need a compliant Congress for many of his important policy shifts.
That is some sarcasticallly humor-licious goodness, right there.
Ooooop! That’s some funny shit, too!
In this particular case it might be better to ask “but will it play in Akron? or Sarasota?” because I suspect Obama could win Peoria fairly easily.
But your above quote pretty much sums up my feelings on all this yet somehow you managed to say it without all the rabid hysteria and fear that I conveyed! (What good is a Pit if you can’t pit yourself a little?)
The difference is that for me, the jury has returned the verdict on Obama and sadly, it is: he can not win in 2008. However I think it was completely the right move for him to run. He has struck while the iron was hot-- while he has the limelight of a rock star. His candidacy this time around can help pave the way toward a possible attempt at a later date when conditions are such that he could be elected (for example, if he was the two-term sitting Vice President). The only thing that could go wrong in for him and the party 2008 is if he is nominated. Because that loses the election for the Democrats.
I realize the above thoughts may sound paradoxical (and/or idiotic) to some but presidential politics is a very strange game indeed. Things are not always what they seem. I’m guessing that there are maneuverings going on right now that even the most politically astute among us at the SDMB would be amazed by. And I’ll admit I’m certainly not among that group. All I meant to do by starting this whole thread was to offer my opinion in a somewhat jocular way (the Wednesday morning Democratic hand-wringing after 2004 and then their repeating the same second-guessing after the 2008 elections having not learned their lesson). The Moderator moved it here to the Pit which I understand, but I would prefer the discussion to be in the realm of Opinion or Debate.
Yet sadly, I have fallen prey to the dirty allure of the free-for-all Pit and let a little frustration lead me to lash out at Marley23 and others. Just 'cause a thread is in the pit doesn’t mean I have to retaliate. I guess I’m just a little sensitive about anyone thinking that I believe a minority or female wouldn’t intrinsically be a good candidate. In this thread I am looking at this whole topic strictly from a coldly logical, strategic point of view.
I must confess that if Obama (who I like a lot) or Hillary (who I don’t care for as much) got the nomination my immediate, visceral feeling would be one of joy, hope and pride. That feeling would be instantly followed by my overly-rational side feeling the dread of an upcoming defeat, and anger towards the party for nominating either of them.
I digress a bit… I wanted to say that my fantasy perfect scenario would be Gore entering the race, followed by a short period of Hillary and Obama contesting him in some primaries just to save face and show that they are fighters. Gore then trounces them in a couple early primaries, they both concede the nomination and pledge all of their money and support to Gore.
Then, at the convention, Gore chooses Osama as his running-mate and the party unites in unanimous support.
For the GOP, tears and bedwetting ensues.
I too want progress and great things; I too have romantic ideals and I hope to be alive to see minority and female Presidents (provided they aren’t backward-thinking GOP religo-bots). But I also have this nasty rational side that wants to see the 2008 chess game played out using only the best strategy to achieve the task at hand.
You wanna know something? I’m one of those people in the middle that you’re talking about. In '04 I voted for John the Hapless, and in '00 I voted for Fat Albert. I’m smart enough to parse the actual candidates and vote for the one I like best (or dislike least, as the case was in '04). Still, this type of divorced from reality, spittle flecked, paranoid, nonsensical, batshit crazy diatribe is EXACTLY the type of thing that has made me more and more leary about remaining a Democrat. It used to be just the fringe types, which was OK, but it seems that the party is moving further and further into loony land as a whole. Electing Dean as chairman of the DNC was a step in that direction. A prevailing attitude of “We can do no wrong and if we’re unsuccessful it’s not because of what we did but because of something someone else did to us”. Continuing to move further and further left with the attitude of “We’re always 100% right, are you too stupid to figure that out? You didn’t vote for us? Well then I guess you are” instead of adopting sensible, moderate to liberal positions and being willing to compromise on them when necessary. As I said earlier, navigating politics by the seat of your arrogance. All of it is such a huge turn off that I have to remind myself to look at the actual candidates and issues when the election comes around lest I just proclaim “a pox on both your houses”. I don’t know what you’re going for here, weather you’re just venting, trolling for mad props from your ideological peeps, with witch the SDMB if rift or what. I do have to tell you, if you’re trying to offer a compelling reason for someone to vote Democrat, you’re not. You’re not helping your cause with your lunacy at all.
Do you have any other signs of impending Armageddon?
(This was for Fuckertan)
:dubious: No, Sir. You might be a lot of things, but you are very definitely not in the middle. Please stop deluding yourself to the contrary. And please stop deluding yourself that you are a Democrat, or even a democrat.
Everybody knows it, but if people are unwilling to act on what they know, it doesn’t matter that they know it. I’m not trying to make a big deal out of who I might vote for; pulling a lever for any of those people won’t cost me a thing. I’m not criticizing anybody who doesn’t want to vote for either of them. But I’m tired of the argument (and it’s 19 months until Election Day) that the party would be better off nominating someone other than its best candidate because that candidate is black or a woman. “I want to vote for Clinton or Obama, but other people wouldn’t” is patronizing, and the Democratic Party has suffered from that in recent years. And as far as the quest for the Most Electable Candidate- that got us Kerry in 2004.
And which is a damned lie, thou damned slave, as you both you and WeirdDave would know quite clearly by this time, if your ears were not so clearly stopped by your rectal walls.
You mean besides the fact that two of the strongest contenders for the WH are a woman and a black man, that the Republican with the biggest war chest is a Mormon, that the GOP governor of the state with the highest population is actually more progressive and liberal than some members of the DNC, and not only is the Speaker of the House a woman, but she’s trying to tackle the kind of foreign policy matters that the Chimp-in-Chief should be doing, but is utterly incapable of? Nope, but I have faith that something will surface soon.
So we need a candidate who is white, black, male, female, and loaded with charisma? But is Michael Jackson electable?
Nah, he lacks the charisma; it fell off along with various body parts.
Well, he does appear to be planning a comeback. In Las Vegas. Which astonishes even me. I would have thought he would spend the rest of his life in some country where you can buy boys by the pound.
Sadly, him being a Jehovah’s Witness is considered to be a bigger deal breaker by many…
:eek: But, JWs won’t accept blood transfusions, will they?!
(Semen is a form of blood, isn’t it?)
Well, Romney believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. And another woman, and another woman…
But seriously, folks, whats up with airline food?
You know what? Fuck you. Fuck you long, fuck you hard, but most of all fuck you with a rusty chain saw. I’m sick and tired of you and your ilk telling me what an acceptable “Democrat” is. You do not guard the gate of who can and can’t be a Democrat like some liberal St. Peter. Every heard of Scoop Jackson? There is a long and proud history of conservative Democrats, all of whom have been disowned by the current crop’s rush to socialism. I happen to remember when being a Democrat was something to be proud of, not an affiliation that required one to embrace lockstep, unthinking obedience, endless entitlements, nanny government, a hatred of this great country and endless whining. I am as much a Democrat as anyone, and I’m not going to give up hoping for better from the party, no matter how much you wish to mock me or try to belittle me with your no true Scottsman type arguments. As for me not being in the middle, would you care to elaborate on why you make this claim? Tell me, please, what I believe in that disqualifies me from moderate status. I’m all ears.
So where is your proof? Jesus Christ, if it’s so clear cut, you’d be able to provide something, wouldn’t you? Instead, every time one of us asks, you fall back on hearsay, innuendo and coincidence, with just a pinch of a couple people breaking the law in New Hampshire thrown in. SHOW ME THIS GRAND REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY YOU LOVE TO WHINE ABOUT SO MUCH, or just STFU and admit you’re a know nothing loudmouth with more passion than sense.