Barney “I swear I didn’t know my roommate was running a brothel out of my apartment” Frank? Well, OK, but only if he picks Bill Clinton as his V.P.
I’d vote for Satan, 'cept I can’t get you to agree to the damn voucher issue.
Ah, enlightenment … I was wondering under which rock all the voodoo economists were hiding … now I know!
Oh. Well then, I’d vote for Bob Kerrey for all the reasons JC gave, plus he’s never shown any particular inclination toward political posturing or mealy-mouthed pandering.
Besides, Mario Cuomo refuses to run for Pres… <d&r>
Willie Brown.
We would have the mst stylish and entertaining leader in the world.
Sofa King said:
I agree. Furthermore, I would love to see a GOP candidate who isn’t kissing the religious right’s ass. Powell might be the one to do that (if he ever decides he wants the job, that is).
This doesn’t have to do with the presidential race, but in the state House district next to mine, an 82-year-old man is running against the incumbent. Why? Because he think he can do a better job and believes in the issues he’s campaigning on. It’s refreshing. He doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning.
Unfortunately, truth is always the first casualty of any election.
I would have offered John McCain as my choice, until he decided to ignore 7/8ths of of his campaign speeches and shill for Dub.
Ed Rendell.
I’d have voted for a Lieberman/Cheney ticket, even.
Then again, Martin Sheen, Morgan Freeman, Harrison Ford (and VP Glenn Close), and many others have played better presidents on television and in the movies than the ones we’ve had in real life. I could deal with any of those.
But in a perfect world, I’d have to say me. 
Esprix
If you think both candidates suck as individuals, then vote for the party whose policies are closest to your own view.
[personal anecdote] The very first election in which I was eligible to vote, I thought both candidates sucked (and they did), and neither was in line with my thinking. I threw my vote away on a third party candidate. Ultimately, the person won that election whose views were FURTHEST from my own. No, my one vote wouldn’t have mattered per se, but I bet there were thousands of first-time voters like me who did something similar. [/personal anecdote]
Don’t waste your vote. If you can’t vote for the person, vote for the party platform. But vote.
**
And encourage those parties to keep sending us assholes, morons and liars? No thanks…
H. Ross Perot is insane. But him making a difference in the elections when he first ran made the two major parties sit up and take notice. They changed as a result of this, I feel.
We need to send this message to them as often as possible.
A vote with integrity is never wasted…
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, four days, 17 hours, 15 minutes and 31 seconds.
8348 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,043.59.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 23 hours, 40 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Satan: << We need to send this message to them as often as possible. >>
I disagree. If you just want to hold up your index finger and yell at them, go ahead and vote for third party or looney party, or whomever. Let’s use the explicit example of Nader. If Gore wins despite Nader, the greens will have lost credibility and influence. If Gore loses and Nader is viewed as a significant factor, the Democrats will close ranks against the “spoiler” who lost them the election. Bush certainly aint gonna compromise on any issues AFTER the election – the deed is done. You want to get Bush to compromise, you do it BEFORE the election (“I’ll drain off Gore votes if you’ll promise me…”)
If you want to do some good, the time to send the message is in LOCAL elections, and at the platform-setting level.
You want a third party that’s effective? Get a few of them elected to the Senate or House of Representatives, where the other two parties will be courting their votes on every close issue. Creating a third party at the Presidential level ain’t gonna ever happen. Creating a third party at grassroots level, that’s where it’s at.
Look at the Parliamentary systems, where the third parties have some influence and control. It’s not because they stand a change in hell of the Premiership, it’s because they control a few critical swing votes in Parliament.
Well, I guess it is turning into a debate.
CKDextHavn, I don’t know if I agree with your analysis of the effects of the Nader vote. If enough people vote for Nader that analysts declare this has lost the election for the democratic candidate, then I would suppose that the democratic party would make efforts to reach out for those voters! Of course, then there might be the consequence (as Boris B mentioned in another thread) that the Democratic party would suffer, since the USA is by and large a right-wing, conservative country, and the democrats have succeeded in the cold war era and its aftermath by moving towards the right.
I do agree with you that a third party needs to start at the local level (state legislatures and elected positions, moving on to US Congress). So people supporting that party should vote for the candidates at all levels, not just for the office of president. But I personally think that a third party in the USA would not be taken seriously by most voters if they failed to field a candidate for the US presidential elections.
Arnold, I think CKDextHavn is exactly right. Given that Nader voters by and large will be well to the left of the general populace (at least, the ones who would be blamed for a Gore loss on Tuesday), it’s much more likely that the Dems would move further to the center/right to try to pick up some more of the “Reagan Democrats” or those who were just fed up with Bill Clinton. I find it highly unlikely that the Dems would try to woo 2-4% of voters and risk alienating a greater percentage of those in the middle.
I’d like to nominate my Mom. She’s really nice, and she knows how to calm everybody down when they get angry. She never lies (except for our own good,) and if their was a big international crises or something, she would just make everybody sit down and talk it out. Then we’d have chocolate chip cookies 
MOM FOR PRES!!
Amen.
[hijack]I’d agree with most of your points CKDextHavn but minor parties are two-edged swords.
Australia is going through a phase where minority governments are very common. It’s a time for poll driven politics rather than good governance. And all sides have a convenient scapegoat to blame for everything. [/hijack]
I think Harry Browne should be president. Any part that favors legal marijuana and lower taxes cannot be all bad.
I really like Russ Feingold, senator from Wisconsin. To me, this guy represents everything a candidate should have. He’s not rich (in fact, he’s probably worth less than most people reading this post), he’s not just someone’s legacy (a la George W.), he’s just a guy who stands up for what he believes in and wants to make a difference. While many candidates claim to favor campaign finance reform, Feingold actually abides by the regulations he has proposed. In fact, he nearly lost his seat in '98 because he refused any soft money and was outspent by a huge margin. He’s one of the only true progressives in office today. He supports and fights for things to help his constituents, and fights for the sake of the entire nation. The odds are that he’s too far left to be a serious candidate for the presidency anytime soon, but he’s young, and if he ever does make a run for it I’ve vowed to quit whatever I’m doing at the time to go work for him. Russ Feingold is my hero.
I take a pretty down-to-earth view of the subject. To me, the best and most effective President is one who is willing to get his/her hands dirty, to make the compromises necessary to get things done, to make enemies where necessary (and woo them back when possible - you’ll need them later). That’s how the process WORKS. That’s how the things you say you want get DONE.
The best training for that is the campaign for office itself. In short, only those who are actually willing to run for the job are qualified for it, in my mind.
There have been a number of names listed here of people who aren’t willing to make the sacrifices and, yes, compromises. Many of you admire your choices for their willingness to “stand by principle” and so forth. Many more of you have not described your choice’s views or performance on more than 1 or 2 issues. So why are you convinced s/he’s the best person available? Why aren’t they running themselves, unless it’s because they don’t want to get their hands dirty?
Bradley is a different case, of someone who seemed to want the job simply handed to him because of his own sense of moral superiority. He certainly didn’t want to get his hands dirty, and I have no confidence he’d be able to get anything much done in the face of any real opposition.
There ain’t no plaster saints in this world, folks. And they wouldn’t make good executive material even if there were.
Or perhaps they decide they have to move to the left on some issues, in order to woo back some of the Greens. Or (less likely) they decide that the Greens are just too far out there, and they move farther to the center, continuing to co-opt Republican issues and siphoning off voters. Everybody loves a centrist, and with the Green Party running out and about, it makes it harder for the GOP to call Gore-types “left-wing liberals.”
Yes,
and No.
I agree that third-party people need to focus more on actually winning elections, however lowly.
But no third party President ever? You’re gonna say that if Colin Powell announces himself as a candidate, there’s no way he doesn’t hold his own against the two dweebs currently running?
The “party machinery” is overrated nowadays. Money is an issue, but let’s say Ross Perot and Ted Turner decide to back Colin: “Here’s 200 mill, pal” Moreover, there are so many free media opportunities today (talk shows, etc.). My guess is that a good showing on Oprah is as effective as several dozen commercials.
Obviously, Powell isn’t going to do this; but my point is that it is possible for someone to have enough personal popularity to be a viable candidate. Unlikely, but certainly possible.
If Jesse Ventura ran in this election (and I think he will in the future), he would have taken 20%.