Who will be the next President of the United States?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
100 comments to Discussion Point VI |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I have a nasty feeling it is going to be H. Clinton.
I’d like to see Newt Gingrich have a go.
Well I don’t think it’ll be Rohrabacher…
I have a nasty feeling it is going to be H. Clinton.
I don’t.
Despite her husband’s organizational and fundraising skills, she doesn’t make nearly as good of an impression as a candidate, and she has quite a lot of baggage.
I suspect that her strategy is simply to suck up the vast majority of the money and talent avaliable to Democrats and get the nomination more-or-less by default. If so, it will lead to disaster. All of her potential opponents have already done (and are still doing) extensive opposition research on her. They haven’t used the dirt they’ve found yet because they don’t need to- when the time comes, a lot of mud (among other things) is going to be flying in her direction, and a lot of it is going to stick.
Between the Congressional D’s going as wild with pork as the R’s and a lack of ideas RE Iraq other than ‘Viet Nam, part deux- because it worked so well last time!’, I expect the D’s to be in as bad an odor in 2008 as the R’s were in 2006.
If the R’s nominate a competent and credible candidate, the WH is theirs to lose.
It probably WON’T be H. Clinton. Too many people hate her and can’t stand the thought of letting her venal husband have another four years of criminality in the White House.
Right now there isn’t anyone who really has a lot of momentum. Fred Thompson possibly could gain some quickly if he chooses to run. He seems like Reagan redux, and a Thompson/Romney ticket would probably be a winner. McCain is too old and Giuliani has too much personal baggage. Obama is simply a media PR construct and is already showing signs of coming apart under pressure 18 months out. Unless someone else steps in who has yet to show any interest (Colin Powell, maybe?), if Thompson runs, he’s probably the guy.
Mac is right. I might eat my words but it won’t be Hillary.
I spend about 50% of my time in NY and opinion there is divided. Most are Hillary supporters but also think she is basically unelectable as she is too polarising and will motivate the right-wing vote which may stay at home in disgust at Bush. Everyone is waiting for the primaries to see who emerges.
McCain is damaged goods through his close ties to the Iraq strategy and too old which is a shame as he is a man of high personal courage and integrity (contrast his record with current British politicians). Giuliani carries too much personal baggage from his “colourful” private life, otherwise he has both personal courage and no little leadership credentials
Obama is different. Hillary’s unelectability is why much media and money has focused on him, but again Mac is right in that he is just too inexperienced to be successful this time. He has huge personal charisma and appeal, but the “muslim or not” card is a massive disadvantage to him. The right will not tolerate this and will again me highly motivated against him.
Thomson may gain momentum, but not too sure about Romney.
Edwards had his attempt last time and this time it’s too late?
Overall very difficult to call.
If Hillary does get the Dem nomination a.sommer is right, it will get very, very dirty, nasty and personal.
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, I think he’ll win. He’s enormously popular, and widely respected on both the left and the right — even many religious fundamentalists are guardedly warming to him, even though his liberal views on abortion and homosexuals are now well known.
If the Republicans pick a “social conservative” of the kind that really enthuses the fundamentalist nutters, the Democrat will win. I still think that will be Clinton, but it’s looking a bit less inevitable now. Obama seems to talk in vague generalities, and I think his idiotic speech after the Virginia Tech shootings will hurt him. And when you get right down to it, a lot of Americans just won’t vote for a man whose middle name is “Hussein”. Edwards is probably the best of the three, and isn’t fatally far behind in the polls right now. If Clinton panics and goes into “politics of personal destruction” mode, it will blow up in her face — that kind of thing doesn’t work the same in the internet age as it did before.
Wild cards: Any more Supreme Court rulings that threaten the right to abortion will shift votes to the Democratic candidate. A major new terrorist attack on US territory will shift votes to the Republican.
Giuliani… and he will be a disaster.
Although he is not in the race yet he is giving all Democratic challengers a run for their money. I think the man who will be President and will win the nomination is Sen Fred Thompson. He has charisma (hence why he is now an actor), a media-savy wife and a soundness which could unite all aspects of the Republican Party.
Giuliani… and he will be a disaster.
Why do you think he will be a disaster?
I think it’ll come down to Gore vs Giuliani — and Giuliani will win. There’s no way Al won’t run, this is the best chance he will ever get. He’s just waiting for his opponents to get covered with muck before announcing.
Another big-government centrist with no attachment whatsoever to civil liberties that get in the way of what he wants to do? Moreover like Cameron in the UK, he will complete the progress of the conservative political party in the US into a group which has no room for small government supporters. He is also very bad on the Second Amendment.
Perry,
Why? Of all the ones I’ve heard of, Guiliani doesn’t seem too bad.
It won’t be the Hildebeast for the very simple reason that I can’t imagine the US public taking Billary back to their collective bosom (however much Bill would like to be embraced by a collective bosom) because I really don’t see ’em being too keen on Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Also because she is a hectoring cow who lacks any charm, warmth of charisma.
I don’t think Obama can be written off as easily as some here. The Goreacle might stage a comeback after his “carbon neutral” (how dare they impugn the reputation of a wonderfully useful element – the bastards!) gigs get lauded by the MSM and he’d be very popular amongst a lot of Dems who are still seething after his 2000 “win”. I doubt it though.
I really don’t know. Probably nominations for Romney or Guiliani for the Republicans, Obama or Hilarious for the Dems. But then, for the actual election if the Dems decide to have a laugh, then they’ll lose but I wouldn’t rule out Obama winning. If the Republicans choose Romney they might squeeze through. If they choose Guiliani then they’ll probably win.
I agree with Infidel753’s “wildcards”. A “pro-choice” Republican such as Guiliani is going to be hard to beat. His one weakness is gun control – especially after VA Tech.
John Edwards. Oh for fuck’s sake! He looks like a character from Dynasty. There’s a higher chance of getting an ice-hockey team together in hell. Ditto for Dean the Scream.
To all US readers though, I wouldn’t rule out the nightmare of a Gore/Clinton ticket (or them having babies* together). Sleep well USA.
I’m not gloating. Look what we’ve got it the UK. Awww fuck!
*In a carbon-neutral manner, obviously. Wouldn’t a birthing pool look just swell in the corner of the oval office as Hillary took over from Gore for the State of the Union Address while Al was whelping in it. I think they’d call him Damian. The technology almost exists for this. Just one more push…
Ok this is wishful thinking, but Ron Paul has put his hat in the ring for the republican nomination.
Dunno about Perry, but I suspect he is correct.
Guiliani is competent, articulate, and gutsy, but he’s also quite authoritarian, has a very messy personal life, and was mayor of NYC, which requires taking political positions that tend not to go over well ourside of NYC.
Then there’s the Kerik thing. The guy smells dirty, and it’s very difficult to believe that Guiliani wasn’t aware of it.
I hope Fred Thompson, but I fear Gulliani for all the reasons Perry has said.
Bill Richardson is interesting on the Sems side, but he will get nowhere near the nomination.
Either Obama or Guiliani depending on which way the chads hang in Florida. If I were a US citizen I’d spend serious money on funding the Cthulhu / Dogbert ticket on the grounds of why vote for the lesser evil…?
I’m more concerned with which bunch to vote against when the Westminster bandwagon starts to roll.
Giuliani won’t get the nomination, and Hillary is more likely to get whacked than ever reach the White House. An Edwards/Obama ticket might do OK for the Dems. Ditto Thompson for the Reps.
I would campaign for Hillary before I would vote for Giuliani.
Guys, they problem isn’t us verses them. It’s the size and power of government. Both Hillary and Giuliani are totallitarians. Giuliani is competent, powerful, popular.
For the same reason I would rather see Brown than Cameron, I would rather see Hillary than Giuliani.
If we get a democrat president, we will either at the same time or on the next two year cycle have both houses of congress strongly in hand. GRIDLOCK IS GOOD!
If we get Giuliani, we will have totalitarians on both sides of the aisle conspiring against free citizens and no way out for eight years!
I don’t think a candidate who seriously plans to substantially reduce the size of government could be elected (or could carry out his intention if he were). There just isn’t much of a constituency for that any more. People talk about it, but when you get down to specifics, nobody wants to cut government as much as the supporters of each specific program want to preserve that program. There will be some fiddling at the margins, but the size of government in the US is not going to be reduced in any meaningful way.
Besides, everyone has something they can point to as a higher priority — avoiding a President who underestimates the Islamic imperialist threat, avoiding a President who will keep packing the judicial system with fundamentalist wingnuts, etc.
Gun rights are more of a problem with Giuliani, but the gun lobby here is very strong and organized. Serious restrictions mean lost elections, and politicians know that.
I agree that he has authoritarian instincts, but he couldn’t be any more authoritarian than the current occupant of the White House, and that’s led him into a seemingly endless series of scandals and blunders that have practically crippled his Presidency and handed Congress to the opposition. I’m just hoping Giuliani is learning the appropriate lessons. You can’t get away with this stuff, not any more.
The fact that Giuliani is a centrist is a point in his favor. The extreme left-right polarization in this country and the poisonous, hate-filled rhetoric coming from the hard-core elements on both sides are absolutely nauseating. We need someone who will overcome that.
I wish there were a candidate with no negatives at all, but given that there are at best seven or eight people who have a realistic shot at the job, I think Giuliani is as good as we’re going to get.
Giuliani is a career prosecutor. His meta-context is that laws are weapons to achieve his goals. I was and am serious.
That is fine if you want a President who can and will ‘do stuff’. Given the choices on offer, I want a President who spends most of his screaming and yelling indecorously, not doing stuff. There is much to be said for poisonous hate-filled rhetoric to distract the bad guys from doing doing too many bad things 😀
Perry: so who of all these people do you think will do the least stuff? I don’t know much about Thompson, but all the rest seem to be just more of the same old. And you are right, Juliani is the only one that we know for a fact is very likely to do some nasty things. He is a likable guy, and he had a fine moment during 9/11 and a couple more fine moments following that, but even before I was aware of the libertarian “metacontext”, I found the idea of being fined for jaywalking quite odd. Normally I don’t care about politicians’ personal lives, but I have a feeling that his personal problems may well have been due, at least partly, to his authoritarian personality.
Hillary reminds me of the ex-wife that I never had.
I hope you are not married, or your wife could see this as fighting words!
Probably Guiliani unfortunately. Cause Hilary has become a cartoon character, and Obama is a gas bag, kinda like Al Gore.
A Republican will win.
As to which Republican it will be that will most likely be decided very early – possibly even in Iowa.
If R.G. wins Iowa he will certainly win New Hampshire (in spite of M.R. having been Governor of Mass – well partly because M.R. was Governor of Mass, crazy health plan and so on).
And winning Iowa and New Hampshire means building up the mo to win South Carolina – and then winning Super Tuesday.
But if someone else wins Iowa (McCain, F.T. or whoever) then it all becomes more interesting.
Just winning New Hampshire will (then) not be enough for R.G. – and South Carolinia and so on become competitive.
But if R.G. wins Iowa it is all over. So (for example) John McCain’s choice to bet everything on Iraq does not mean that Iraq must be going well by November 2008 – it means if must be going well by January 2008 (or he has lost).
Fred T. (or someone else) might still beat R.G. in Iowa (he is not all that strong there) – but they must start work now.
As for the Democrats.
Inspite of massive media support the Democrats are in trouble.
The Pork was a stupid mistake (as it is not just the Iraq bill – they are even trying to block various agencies responsible to Congress from naming indiviudla Senators and Congressmen who bring in ear marks).
And the “blue dog” (conservative) Democrats have proved to be phony (they vote like other Democrats). So a lot of moderate people who voted Democrat are not happy and a lot of Republicans who stayed home wish they had not. Nor are the endless “investigations” working out well for the Democrats – yes the people who think “Bush-Hitler” is the Devil believe everything that is said in them, but a lot of other people are getting irritated with the “investigations” already.
As for Mrs Clinton – her preformance in the campaign has been terrible.
The Clinton campaign has even had to “deploy Bill” (something they were not planning to do till much closer to Iowa) – full length interview on Larry King (and so on).
However, due to the vast amounts of money under Mrs Clinton’s control and the support of the main officers of the Democrat party the Senator should still get the nomination – and then go down to defeat in November 2008.
After all who else is there?
A man whose only special qualifcation is that he is black? After all who would have ever noticed the junior Senator from Illinois (out demanding more tens of billions of Dollars for third world aid or whatever) if he had been white?
Or perhaps the trial lawyer – George Soros’ boy John Edwards? The man who ran for President in 2004 because he knew he could not hold his Senate seat.
I admit that Governor Bill Richardson is interesting (although his vetoing of bill that would have protected people in New Mexico from having their property stolen and given to developers, is unfortunate), but he will not be the Democrat candidate. Although if the Senator has any common sense Mrs Clinton will make him the candidate for Vice President (Richardson is a moderate, and he is an hispanic, and he is from the West, and therefore fits into the Democrats Western gambit for the 2008 elections).
I am told that former Vice President Albert Gore could still run.
That would at least get Hollywood fully into the race – they seem utterly bored with Mrs Clinton.
As for Perry’s point about “doing stuff” being bad:
Yes if “doing stuff” means more regulations or (like President Bush) more spending programs.
But a lot of stuff does need doing – getting rid of regulations and cutting government spending.
Whether any Republican President will be willing or able to do this is a moot point – but the “leading Democrats” just want to vastly increase government spending and regulations.
They are no different, in policy, to the socialist candidate in the French elections for President. The only difference is that the French socialist is attractive and does not come over as a phony.
Fred Thompson can’t possibly win, he’s too far right. Any candidate that supports the Iraq war can’t win. Giuliani could win if he takes a moderate stance on Iraq. Gingrich has foot-in-mouth disease. I think it will be Gore or Clinton.
Alice: do you have a link with the stats? It sounds interesting.
Baghdad Osama. Like Gore but less globular. And more intelligent.
If Fred Thompson turns against the war, the Presidency is his to lose. I’d rather see Ron Paul (or even Bill Richardson, who is fairly pro-freedom for a dem), but he will probably bow out eventually. I just hope that he makes a lot of noise before that happens, and that some of the energy he creates transfers to other libertarians/non-fascists.
I would vote *against* John McCain, almost regardless of who the Dems were running. I would perhaps vote *for* Newt as I know from people who worked with him that he’s a pretty decent sort… and he is not a lawyer.
As to Hillary? I don’t find her politics as disturbing as those of an Al Gore or some of the others although I’d ‘rather not’ see her in the WH.
I think there is a substantial vote amongst those whom the media has failed to brainwash about the progress of World War III in these early years of this decades or centuries long struggle.
Given that McCain was not the candidate, I would vote for whomever is the most warlike.
I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, since I was born 4 years after Goldwater ran), and then vote Libertarian in the election (unless Paul pulls off a miracle).
By the way, he and I are not related.
Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Obama all have problems. Of that bunch Giuliani is the least unlikely to win.
Clinton: Just annoys too many people with her smugness, not to mention the well known baggage.
Plus senators/congress folks have a handicap compared to those holding executive positions like governors, generals and the like.
Giuliani: Has the multiple divorce issue. While not a problem to most, it is to enough people to be a barrier. Plus he is a NYC Republican. Remember that the NYC Rep Party exists as a palce for dissident Democrats to go have a tantrum and stand out from the rest of the Democrats that actually run that city. So if he manages to get the RP nod, he will likely cause the religios right to sit on its hands at home, (not a bad thing), but may attract left of center independant that may be uncomfortable with whoever the Dems go with.
Plus-held an executive position as Mayor of a city bigger than many states.
McCain: Three things alone: ‘bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran’ is at least as damaging as Deans screech, McCain-Feingold, and do we all remember the Keating Five???? also never really held an executive position.
Plus: He was a beer distributor. Business owner could count as executive. But is he really elidgable? He was born in the Panama Canal zone. I have never really heard that addressed as to whether that counts as being native born, unless that counts as a military base?
Romney: The Mormon thing. A very big issue with religois conservatives, never mind the fundies. Also sudden changes in positions like abortion and gun rights are very off-putting to a lot of people.
Plus side – was a governor
Obama: Interesting, but a blank slate. While that can be good, I think there is a lot in his background that will come out next year if he remains viable. You do not get anywhere in Chicago/Illinoise politics without being in on the take. also the whole non-executive thing. Also, not a lot of experience which counts for more now than it used to. Plus the whole Obama rhymes with Osama, muslim connection thing. Race is not a big issue, but in a close 2004 like election, would likely be enough of a factor to be a problem.
Thompson is an interesting carrot at the moment, he could change the race. never an executive, but he did topple a sitting governor as a us attorney. His public appeal, fame from his acting carreer and speaking ability are a plus. He is also more of a real conservative than other current R. candidates.
Gore: Too many negatives with a Gerry Brown like nuttiness. The whole AGW thing is a lightning rod. If he jumps in, he will likely drown.
Kerry: Wait, I just snorted my drink out my nose onto my keyboard. Dems won’t go to that well again.
Ron Paul: Like all my fantasies, not gonna happen without a lot more money than I have and a change in the laws.
Edwards: can you say candy-man? A trial lawyer and carries a stain from being part of the loser Kerry ticket. Doubtful.
Other possibilites are out there. Wait until August to see who else jumps in or out and ask again.
Some comments don’t properly factor in the earlier primaries this election. w/o too much fanfare the big primaries have moved into early 2008.
The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries won’t mean much although some symbolism will remain.
I don’t think one issue makes a candidate a sure loser. Iraq, abortion, immigration, one’s personal life, etc. The surest way to lose is to have no principles whatever – who the hell wants this ‘i voted for it before i voted against it’ stuff?
My view: I would rather be ruled by chimpanzees than most of our politicans.
My guess – Gore w/Obama as VP will run against Guiliani w/Ron Paul. The Democrats will win big. But then I never doubt our ability to screw up.
It would be nice to see Gingrich run but I’ll go with Bruce Gottfred’s comment, Gore vs Giuliani. With Giuliani to win.
I suspect this would not necessarily actually be positive, more the lesser of two evils.
Gore, with Obama as the VP.
There is no possibility that any Repub can overcome the enormous animosity of the media in the US, and west in general.
The people who frequent this site might have more wide-ranging sources than the average for news, but the ordinary voter gets info from the MSM and local networks. Those sources are almost uniformly anti-Iraq and heavily environmental, as in climate change and various other pop-green issues.
The media will demolish any Rep candidate with overwhelming negatives on a daily basis, and will seem to be invincible when their candidate is elected.
The two wildcards are: 1) another successful, major terrorist attack against the US itself; and, 2) some dramatic development in Iraq or the ME that vindicates the military action there in a stunning way.
One or both of those might change the equation, but I doubt either would be reported as anything but negatives for the Bush admin, and, therefore, the Repubs, regardless of the facts on the ground.
I have long dispensed with any illusions about the capacity of the MSM for politically motivated mendacity.
Guiliani, at least on the 2nd Amend., is trying to reposition himself as a federalist, he’s got a long way to go to convince me.
Right now, F. Thompson has got my vote, if he runs. He is far and away the best orator of either party and, unlike GWB, he can speak to people in plain language without coming off as a doofus. He also has the advantage of having been away from government the last few years.
For those that think Thompson is too far to the right, keep in mind he’s been called out by uber-evangelical, James Dobson(Link)
I would love to see McCain as president.
He would be sure to bring Iraq to an honourable conclusion.
By which I mean withdraw without causing more damage than necessary.
Giuliani is a communist plain and simple, who actually believes slavery is freedom.
I’m willing to believe Giuliani as a federalist. I don’t see anything out of him that would go the other way on that count.
If Thompson runs, he wins, point blank.
1. The Republicans are aching for anything that might repair the badly-rent fabric of the Reagan Coalition.
2. He’s the only candidate on offer on either side of the aisle who actually has the **communication skills** required of the office.
Seriously. The guy sometimes substitutes for Paul Harvey on the radio, and not knowing anything about the guy, everybody I know who hears him on the radio simply likes him, right off the bat.
McCain is old news, old statism, and old DC: this trick of officially announcing today isn’t getting him anywhere. I give him full credit for not shafting the troops (I’m a hawk that way), but haven’t seen him register any real support.
Romney, et. al., all seem to have a bad case of “politician’s haircut.” Too much obvious weathervaning. Giuliani has less polish… which might give him a nomination nod, but Thompson creams him with the Coalition on issues.
Across the aisle you have:
1. A very left-leaning neophyte who’s already looking tired.
2. A communitarian senator who has never failed to p**s off the public the second they weren’t being managed by her handlers.
3. The also-rans (and Gore won’t be there, because the money isn’t going to be there for him).
Seriously, it won’t be Clinton.
In a way, it’s a pity. A President Hillary would be foreign-policy vicious on a scale that only rabid North American Badgers could emulate.
But she’s never yet learned to handle a hardball question, and has a totally tin ear. That’s survivable getting into Congress… but in a Presidential debate? Unless she is clearly being tossed nothing but softballs, she stands no chance.
Being the President, first and foremost is about the Bully Pulpit and communicating to the public: both Reagan and Clinton survived scandals that would have totally destroyed other politicians because of their ability to keep the public on their side.
Charisma counts, and right now, Thompson’s the only guy who has it.
Pat Paulsen, of course.
He’s tanned, he’s fit, he’s ready.
Unless of course their name is Ronald Regan (did it twice), George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush (also managed to pull it off twice). And that’s just in the last 26 years. You can’t honestly tell me that any of them got softball treatment from the US media.
The biggest hoax that the MSM has managed to pull off is to convince people that what they think is also what the man on the street thinks. Reality has proved them wrong so many times. And as 2004 showed us, they now have to compete with the internet, something they have so far failed at.
Far from being filled with Doom n’ Gloom©, 2008 looks to be the best time in years to pull off a second Regan Revolution.
Hillary: Absolute negative. Bill Clinton, minus the charisma. On the plus side, she has principles. On the minus side, they make her a shrill socialist and therefore unelectable.
Obama: Bill Clinton, only his ethical issues thus far have nothing to do with interns. The is-he-a-Muslim thing won’t do him any favors.
Edwards: Limited sympathy vote for his wife, cancelled out by a large “Why is he out advancing his career when he should be with his family.” Having good hair won’t do it.
Lurch: Even Democrats couldn’t be that dumb. The “stuck in Iraq” crack means that he’s unelectable now. Even in Massachusetts he couldn’t get elected without incumbency.
Gore: At this point, I think most Americans probably see him as the caricature of him in South Park’s Manbearpig episode. He couldn’t even carry his own home state last time he ran. He will run, though, but neither the money nor the votes to win.
Giuliani: Makes me want to emigrate. Authoritarian thug. Claims to be law and order, and most of his cops didn’t like him. However, he had his moment on the back of the fire truck after 9-11-01, and that’s how most Americans will probably see him.
McCain: Old, famous temper, and McCain-Feingold. He’s one of those guys who keeps running and running.
Duncan Hunter: Who?
Fred Thompson: I could only hope.
A Thompson/Rice ticket, I would sell guns or blood to donate to that.
Mid, Perry,
I understand precisely where you’re both coming from. I understand why you both feel as Mid put it “Gridlock is Good”.
But, if it comes down to it I’d rather have a competent government spending the cash they take from me than an incompetent one. I know that is not ideologically pure or even especially effective in terms of bringing about the Liberal almostopia but I’ve also gotta live now. Short of some kind of blood hitting the ceiling revolution (which I neither relish nor expect) the rolling back of the state and it’s replacement by civil society is going to take a long time.
This is not a defeatist attitude. I regard it as realistic. You get in someone who cuts spending and people see that the sky hasn’t fallen. Then you get someone who takes it further… And so on.
One chip at a time. Just give me a rock hammer and a poster of starlet.
If the US elects the likes of Clinton, Obama or Edwards then we are all fucked. The minute I see European papers lauding a US President is the minute I know The West hasn’t just lost the plot but had it trashed and then recycled.
So, maybe, Rudi ain’t that great but compared to the rest…
There’s a war afoot and having a gridlocked government is absolutely not the way to persue it. That will only result in some compromise to keep on fighting but to fight it in a really half-assed manner.
There are few preventable tragedies on Earth that compare with fighting a war really half-assed. And this is a war we have to win (and I mean really win) if we are ever to get to Churchill’s broad sunlit uplands.
Whichever on went to a Bilderberg meeting in the last 5 years.
Joining the thread a bit late, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s someone none of us suspects yet. I seem to recall the smart money being on Jeb Bush through most of 1999. There’s still a long way to go…
Whichever one went to a Bilderberg meeting in the last 5 years.
tomWright,
Based on waht you wrote about his birthplace I believe that John McCain is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore cannot become president.
He obviously is a US citizen but I think that this derives either from his parents or from the fact that the congress has granted citizenship to citizens of the canal zone, in the same way that it grants citizenship to those born in Puerto Rico. If McCain is able to become president it implies that even if Puerto Rico became independent Congress would not be able to take away citizenship from those born on the island and that a Puerto Rican born person could become president.
I got a letter from John McCain asking for his support. Goodness knows how he got my name and why he thought I might be a likely supporter.
In answer to the question, I think that Giuliani will be the next president. His personal life may be colourful but so was Bill Clinton’s.
It will probably be a career politician, one who already owes people. I would like it to be Ron Paul, because he sounds far more like a Libertarian than he does a Republican. He’s got our Australian Libertarian vote!
In reality, it seems he’s not backed by enough money.
But why do we have to settle for reality?
Second Life has shown us the way- create a virtual Libertarian world (“Free Life”?)! Show the different varieties of libertarian thought, and allow gamers to experience a free life style! Simply suppose it’s a place where Ron Paul has already won, and done what he promised! (Have him as the President of America, leading the way in government downsizing.)
Any game Gamers out there, who can build a better world?
(Greetings from a first time poster)
I think Edwards will pull it off in the end. He looks good, he was already roasted by the Rovian slime machine in 2000, and there will be alot of sympathy via his ‘feisty’ wife and her cancer. Hillary is just too disturbing and America isn’t ready for a black President.
The republicans don’t have a realistic chance to pull it off due to the lack of a candidate who could bring out enough of the religious wingnuts and the contamination by association with Dumbya.
Rudi will eventually be seen as the obnoxious putz he is and
Mitt is a Mormon (see wingnuts above) and a flip-flopper of outstanding proportions.
Brownback and Tancredo are nut jobs,
McCain, well, need I say more than “Bomb-Bomb-Iran”?
I guess Huckabee might have a shot but their best bet is
Thompson(my bet for candidate)+Paul (fail the primary because he’s too much an antiGOPer).
But in the end, I think the GOP candidate will be punished simply for not reigning in w.
The winner will be the Democrat presz candidate.
I believe, historically (after FDR), that no party has gained three consecutive Prez winners by election. Especially after Bush II, I don’t think there’s any way the US will elect another Republican as prez. (I will hedge this a bit: If the political power brokers manage to corrupt the system, a Repub might win. You don’t think it was coincidence that there was a Bush gov in Florida and Texas — high electoral college vote states — in the last election, do you?)
So, who will be the Dem prez candidate? I think it is still too early to tell.
cj: Reagan, Reagan, Bush. That wasn’t even that long ago.
I think Ron Paul is not totally the right candidate that you might have thought he was.
I think Fred Thompson has a very good chance if he runs. People know who he is and the mid-West will not vote for a Northeastern RINO.
If people want an anti war Republican it has to be Ron Paul – no other antiwar Republicans are running.
As for immigration – free migration for a nation with free government education, and loads of other welfare benefits is simply not going to work. “That is just another reason to get rid of these things” – quite so, but till then…… After all do you really want people like me turning up?
On the war: I was against the judgement to go into Iraq – but that does not mean I want to see the West going down to defeat (and the idea that we can lose in Iraq and still fight on to victory in Afghanistan is absurd).
As for the Democrats – they are all committed to defeat, and they all committed to vast new government welfare state programs (on top of the ones that President Bush has introduced) higher taxes (and higher taxes in economically the most damage inflicting ways) and more regulations. O.K. Bill Richardson may have his doubts – but publically he is going along with the pack (he is not going to become the candidate for Vice President any other way).
Trying to draw policy distinctions between the other Democrat candidates (“this one is more intelligent than that one” or whatever) is silly, the rest are all useless – it really is as simple as that.
On the Republican side, perhaps Perry was right and a lot more troops should have been sent into Iraq from the start in order to break the militias (including the Shia ones) and build up a national army (although people like me feared that extra troops would just be used to stand on street corners to be used for target practice by the various terrorist groups).
Such a “go in with lots of troops” line sounds like John McCain – “but Dale Amon hates John McCain and he is not the only person who hates him”.
O.K. Fred Thompson then?
After all he is not weak on the Second Amendment (like R.G.).
He has formally recanted on his support for “campaign finance reform” (i.e. the McCain death-to-the-First-Amendment line). And (unlike M.R. with his various moves) Fred Thompson’s recantation is of long standing.
And he is strong on controlling taxes and spending, i.e. getting them down – which appeals to fiscal conservatives (although Steve Forbes insists that R.G. is to).
But if Fred Thompson wants to be President he had better move real soon.
I’m hoping and praying for a Thompson/Rice or maybe Thompson / J.C. Watts ticket.
Any candidate that supports the Iraq war can’t win.
This is quickly becoming Conventional Wisdom, but I have serious doubts about its veracity.
I don’t believe an anti-war candidate has ever won an election in America. The closest you could come would be Carter, but he was elected in 1976, a year and a half after the Vietnam War was over. During the Vietnam War, the (relatively) pro-war candidate trounced the opposition every time.
The same with the current war. The Dems trotted out a “softer” alternative to Bush in 2004, and he lost. The Dems who foregrounded an anti-war message in the recent elections tended not to win as well; the current majority in no way reflects a mandate to get out of Iraq, wishful thinking by various media outlets and political pooh-bahs notwithstanding.
Anti-war tends to come across, rightly or not, as anti-win the war, and Americans can’t stand losing, or losers.
RCD: so why did the Dems take Congress?
Actually, upon just now looking, I didn’t find much not to like about Ron Paul… Especially in light of the other potential candidates. He seems to sit pretty close to the American (capital “L”) Libertarian line. And even if you don’t totally agree with it.. it’s closer to what I want, than anything either of the main two parties offer me.
Nick M,
Candidates cannot buy votes buy not spending any money. No politician will roll back government. The best they can do is obstruct its growth and capitalize on opportunities. Not even Reagan rolled back government. He just put it on the credit card. We have always made our greatest advances towards liberty when gridlocked politicians are ripping each others hearts out and eating them on national television. Better theirs than ours.
Hhmmm… And would you point out to your kidnapper that your handcuffs are loose and the guy paid to guard the door is sleeping? By nature, governments make laws and spend money. I most emphatically, definitely, let!there!be!no!doubt!, foamingly certainly DON’T want a government that is good at what governments naturally do. When there is gridlock, we the people are the tie-breakers. Sans gridlock and internecine combat, they rewrite the laws to grant themselves impunity and perpetuity. Your government under Blair did best what governments do most when left to themselves. How is it?
Nick, I have to live in this country. What happens at home comes first for me. Bush has been a disaster. Your plan is to use one of his disasters to perpetuate another one of them. One drowning nation cannot save another one. If we don’t get gridlock on spending soon, there will be no money left for any military.
Giuiliani is Blair with a New York attitude. He makes centrist noises. But he is on the right end of the communist/fascist spectrum. Individual liberty is not in his meta-context. He is very anti liberty and very good at it. If he wins, we will have a Democrat president with a deceptive (R) after his name on the ballot.
As for the war, I think we should have Iraq put our presence up for a vote by region, make sure the vote is a legitimate and accurate one, and then follow its mandate. I suspect they will vote for suicide. But if not, their statement will give us a huge lever over the (p)EU and the UN.
I think Sunfish’s (Fred) Thompson/Rice ticket has a lot more legs than anybody realizes yet. Never under estimate the benefit of looking and sounding like a president in a US political campaign. It is worth a lot. He’s the best candidate since Reagan.
Alisa,
Because the Republicans needed a good spanking. Support for Democrats is no more fundamental than support for Republicans is.
It used to be a joke, but now I seriously believe that if some clever wit legally changed his name to ‘none of the above‘, he would win on the protest vote alone.
Mid: I understand that. My question was a spanking for what, if not for Iraq?
Quenton writes:
Interesting thing to say. I think you might be right about this. If there’re two things this discussion has highlighted so far, they’re (a) that this election has started WAY too early and (b) that exactly none of the current “frontrunners” are even remotely acceptable – not just to us Libertarian types, but to the US voting public in general.
There’s plenty of time for this batch to expose itself as a gaggle of non-choices, which means equally as much time for a dark horse campaign to get off the ground to fill the void.
Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.
For this.
Oh, I see, “it’s the economy, stupid” all over again. Yes, it makes sense.
My question was a spanking for what, if not for Iraq?
For Walter Reed, Foley, Katrina, the Dubai port-management thing, abuses of the PATRIOT Act, the Pat Tillman cover-up, the biggest non-military government spending splurge in US histiory, pandering to fundamentalist nutjobs, packing the federal judiciary with fundamentalist and anti-abortion extremists, sticking their heads in the sand about global warming, and a general pattern of corruption, arrogance, hypocrisy, and incompetence.
Iraq figured into it too, but mostly because of a perception that we’re losing due to the administration’s incompetence.
I suspect Condi Rice believes herself to be permanently compromised by being associated with this administration, hense her intention to never run for anything, ever.
I think she is wrong and has quite a bit of political capital. I think a lot of people like me think she is one, if not the only, thing in the whole executive branch preventing a total debacle.
Infidel,
You left out Abu Ghrab, seeing Putin’s soul, “Mission Accomplished” (with a sock), the permanent sneer on his face, his attorney general, unlaterally re-writing the constitution, claiming he had a mandate when he barely had a plurality, turning success to failure in Afghanistan, … , … , …
Somebody else’s turn.
Infidel,
You left out…..seeing Putin’s soul
That’s a big one all right. Say what you will about Giuliani, he’s not the kind to fall into such sappy nonsense.
Too true. His is ‘sappe‘ness of another kind entirely. RINO
With some exceptions of Presidents elected during war, and BushII being the only president to START a war, I believe every President has been Anti-War.
Libertarians need to start recognizing that Dem Nanny Staters are the opposite side of the coin from GOPer Big Brothers. Neither represent true Lib-Dem or Con-Rep ideals and I think to simply swap party titles leads to less productive conversations.
C’mon, you just want Condi to do the spanking (joking is OK here, right?)
I agree with all you said and more. I just wish it were “perception” that we are losing. I think Reid is right, we have no further attainable, or even rationally stated, objectives in Iraq other than to get the hell out.
OK, I hope you guys are actually answering my question about the popular sentiments, and not all of these are your personal opinions, as some of it is nonsense.
I am so glad that you brought up Putin’s soul, BTW, as it is my all time favorite. The smirk too, of course, although Clinton’s was much worse. At least W. does not bite his lip.
As to Condi: Thompson has lymphoma, and Condi is black. Doesn’t this combination spoil here chances as a VP candidate?
Dave: I think in times of peace almost everyone is anti-war.
OK, I hope you guys are actually answering my question about the popular sentiments, and not all of these are your personal opinions, as some of it is nonsense.
I think these were (among) the real reasons why people were disgusted with the Republicans. Iraq is not the only issue people are concerned about, or even the only major one.
First, those opinions I expressed are a civilized version of the opinions I hear from the seemingly normal people I meet. Boomer and older teachers, insurance salesman, small business owners and just about everyone else. Nobody likes Bush. Not even his supporters.
As for Condi, I’ve given that some thought and talked around my friends and I don’t think it is a serious factor. We’ve had many women in high profile positions for a long time (remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick?) and the last two Secretaries of State have been black. We see her on the screen so often that she is a person, not a color. We are already used to her being what is generally considered to be the second most powerful person in the country. I really don’t think it will have much bearing outside of the extreme fringe nutcases.
Alisa,
PNAC has supported an aggressive militaristic approach to American foreign policy for decades. That’s one of the reasons why w had to promise not to nationbuild in his ’00 campaign. Also, I think that MW was very mild in his statement about “spanking the GOP.” People here in the NorthEast used to just dislike w and his policies. Now “hate” is freely used to describe feelings towards both Bush and the prior congress.
MidWest,
Do you think that the smear campaign (Link)on McCain in 2000 indicates that the South in still not ready for a black candidate? And that without the red south, there is no chance for an (R) to win? Of course Obama might even that out.
Yes, well, that smear campaign is when I went from ambivalently opposed to utterly detesting Bush as a person. It is also when I began to answer accusations that I was a Republican with counter insults.
That single period in that one party’s primary is, I believe, the emperor has no clothes moment in American politics. The point at which voting against, not for, became the norm rather than an occasional protest. I’ve only known well, one family from South Carolina and I don’t know very many others from the deep south. I do know “once burned, twice shy” applies down there as well as up here. I imagine the next campaign that tries to dupe them like that and pull their strings might not get the response they expect. And I expect Secretary Rice to have a better chance there than a New York mayor.
Secretary Rice has something that no other name anywhere near the field except maybe McCain has. She has the respect of even those who deeply oppose her. Think about this. How many top names in either party in any branch do you respect? How many of them would be of even the slightest consequence without their party gangsta muscle. Take away their political machines and who among them would ever have risen above middle management in a box store?
Joshua’s 9:22 is interesting. Sometime soon, whether it will be before this election is not clear yet, their will be a purge in the parties. Either that or they will be replaced. One or both of them. Politically, our parties are fractured and detached from their base much like they were in the 1850s.
Alisa, most politicians claim to love peace. i have never yet heard of a modern pollie claiming he/she would start a war with another country if elected. Has there ever been a recent pro-war campaigner, and did they win? (Ignoring ‘Wars’ on drugs, or poverty, or other internal conditions)
Dave: PNAC is not the same as an individual candidate, however much he may be perceived as being associated with them. Your point about w. further proves this. As to people “disliking” him beforehand, I think you are the one that is being mild:-) For the record, I never actually liked him either (I voted for Gore, not that I liked him, mind you). I could count politicians that I actually liked (both in Israel and the US, for the past 30 years) on one hand. By “like” I mean as a person, regardless of policies. I just read the Wiki about Thompson, and it looks pretty good, all things considered. As a person, the only impression of him I have is as an actor, but I actually think it can be helpful to a certain extent. Anyway, Mid, I hope you are right. We need some people who can rise to the occasion of the impending crisis*.
*Being mild myself now.
Dave: PNAC is not the same as an individual candidate, however much he may be perceived as being associated with them. Your point about w. further proves this. As to people “disliking” him beforehand, I think you are the one that is being mild:-) For the record, I never actually liked him either (I voted for Gore, not that I liked him, mind you). I could count politicians that I actually liked (both in Israel and the US, for the past 30 years) on one hand. By “like” I mean as a person, regardless of policies. I just read the Wiki about Thompson, and it looks pretty good, all things considered. As a person, the only impression of him I have is as an actor, but I actually think it can be helpful to a certain extent. Anyway, Mid, I hope you are right. We need some people who can rise to the occasion of the impending crisis*.
*Being mild myself now.
Remember the Dems took both houses of Congress by a squeeker it was not like the blow-outs Republicans have suffer even in the 90s.
It used to be a joke, but now I seriously believe that if some clever wit legally changed his name to ‘none of the above’, he would win on the protest vote alone.
-Mid
It’s been done.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71130F933A05753C1A965958260
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=34067
He got 6-7%.
ps: any chance of getting this
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
in inflation-adjusted values? I kinda suspect it’ll flatten out quite a bit, and if you push the start date back to 1900, the current values should look relatively unexceptional.
a.sommer:
A Comprehensive review (Link)The values are still the largest even after adjustment. The real problem is not just the deficit (which historically could be claimed to be at a comparable pct of GDP rates), it’s the unabated accumulation of debt, both public and private.
MW:
I think it’s easy to overstate the sustainability of Condi’s popularity.(Link) In my circles, she is looked at as the quiet lapdog sent to do w’s dirty work over seas. I think the popularity is based on her apparent lack of conflict in her duties and that most people distinugish her from Bush. I don’t think that would last in either a primary or an election.
Alisa,
Yes, I was being very mild 🙂 and I voted for Gore and Kerry and would have even voted for Sharpton in ’04 (not ’00, I didn’t know better then). Thompson the actor hasen’t declared yet and I don’t really know too much about his policies, Thosmpson the Govenor just declared and he might be acceptable to me (except for being a Republican in this decade). As for PNAC, w is a neocon and PNAC policies are his policies. I for one have a hard time distinguishing their agendas.
a. s,
That was in ’93 and he used the name “Absolutely Nobody“. In light of the 14 years since then and the different name choice, I stand by my prediction. But your link was interesting.
D22,
Thank you for that budget/etc link. Right into my bookmarks.
Regarding Secy. Rice, my impression is that she is holding her nose and doing international damage control. This president has made clear that disloyalty is a fireable offense, so she has the choice (along with some others, no doubt) of abandoning the country to its fate or shutting her mouth and doing what she can.
I think Thompson the governor did the same thing and finally bailed. He was an excellent state governor, but I’m not sure how much credit for that goes to the incredibly sweeping line item veto powers our Wisconsin governors have. The first thing I noticed personally after Doyle (D) took over Wisconsin is infrastructure projects that were well under way were defunded. Probably so the state could afford to pay back the people who bought Doyle the governor’s mansion.
Incidently, Governor Thompson’s brother Ed is a (big ‘L’) Libertarian and drew 11% of the vote in a governor’s race where the winner got 45%.
What was the name of the president in Atlas Shrugged?
And has anybody ever heard of The Briefs?
They did a song called ‘No More Presidents’, and another called ‘Destroy The USA'(George says it’s ok).
Hillary reminds me of the mother-in-law I never had. Specifically, Endora from “Bewitched.”
I’d feel safer in Endora’s company, though…
Mid,
I follow your logic, but… I just find it difficult to countenance the squalor and waste involved. I personally find it obscene to think of the glee I will feel when HMG’s ID card scheme turns into an expensive debacle. Oh, I’ll be pleased when the whole thing is scrapped but billions will have been spent on it.
I must confess to knowing precious little about Fred Thompson. I know rather more about Condi Rice and I think you’re right about her. I don’t think her race or sex are going to put many folk off. You are also right about the “looking presidential” thing. Like many people, after watching Deep Impact I thought, “If Morgan Freeman stood… he could win”.
You said that McCain & Rice are respected even by people who disagree with them. Well, yes. I guess they are. I think of it in terms of who I wouldn’t mind moving into my street. I think that’s also important in becoming president. I think that’s how W squeeked past Gore. Not because W is anything special but Gore is obviously a pompous oaf (and very fat, now).
I think you’re right about Condi’s role in the current administration. It makes sense of something I’ve wondered about for a while – she very rarely looks happy. In fact, she looks positively pissed-off most of the time. I think she may conclude she’s well out of it and I somehow can’t ever imagine her standing as VP (Sec State is much more important). In any case, isn’t her dream job to run the NFL?
So, what’s it like under Blair? Well, it’s pretty much how it’s always been. There is more nutty regulation (my wife got a letter recently from HMG advising her on how to turn her workplace “smoke free” – she’s a sole-trader working at home) and taxes are higher but we all do our best to avoid them. It is an absurd waste and a peculiar mixture of neo-puritanism, venality, corruption and incompetence. Blair has politicized things which shouldn’t have been politicized and the public-sector is maladministered to a staggering extent. Just Google how much over-budget the Scottish Parliament was. The thing is. If I get sick, then it’s the NHS I have to turn to and you can forgive me for hoping it’s competently run.
There is something off-putting about Tommy Thompson. Something stupid. I am probably wrong, though.
Also, I have a feeling that Hillary is not as bad as a person as many think. Of course, as a politician, she is out of the question for me, though.
Mid,
I think we might be talking different Thompson’s – Ooops! An no, I don’t know much about Tommy either.
I do really wonder about Obama. He was all over the US media when I was there last autumn but I have to say I was underwhelmed. There just seemed something “fake” about him. I don’t mean the more lurid, “He’s a crypto-Islamist Manchurian Candidate stuff”, more just he reminds me of Blair in ’96. A suit full of bugger-all.
Anyway, I have to declare an interest in this election because (and I’m not in general a gambling man) I fancy a bet on it. I also have another interest, obviously, because who the President is does matter to us Brits. I have to say, I’m a little confused over it all because I’m looking at it through two different lenses simultaneously, so to speak.
Possibly I’m also interested because UK politics is extremely dull. There’s only one prediction I’m prepared (read “bothered”) to make for the next UK General Election. The turn-out will be very low.
Oh, BTW, I liked that graph. People here regard US Presidents almost entirely in terms of their foreign policy. They then transfer that over to how Americans feel. So W ain’t too popular in the US and they automatically think it’s Iraq and not things like the deficits. My mother was shocked when I told her about that.
I always thought it was ‘Hilary’, as in ‘hilarity’.
Two L’s is a man’s name isn’t it?
Alisa, I know what you mean about Tommy. I think that a lot, but I think it is superficial. If he had still been secy of HHS when Katrina hit, the story would have been entirely different. He had built an entire command center in HHS, sort of a war room for natural and man made disasters and had developed the necessary interdepartmental communications and response plans. Since I heard no more about it, I’m assuming it was neglected or abandoned when he resigned. He seems to have a strong dose of common sense and ability to anticipate the obvious. He certainly broke course and turned Wisconsin in a better direction. We were much more libertarian and fiscally responsible under him and were very dissapointed when he left to became secy. of HHS. Funny enough, his predecessor at HHS was also from Madison (Donna Shalala).
When I wanted to emphasize my antagonism for Giuliani, I chose Hillary to make my case. And yet you are probably right. She is probably just another face on the near left who happens to have an offputting personality.
Nick M, Tommy Thompson is the former gov of Wisconsin who was appointed Secy HHS at the beginning of Bush’s first term. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who played himself in a movie about a case he was involved in. As they say, the rest is history. Ronald Reagan got into politics from entertainment. Fred Thompson got into entertainment from politics.
Obama’s voting record is somewhere to the left of Teddy Kennedy.
Pietr, she has two ‘L’s. Take that how you will.
Seem to be lots of comments here saying Fred Thompson can’t win because he backs the war. Thing is, the majority of the American people like to win wars. That majority may come across in polls as being disgusted with the war, but that doesn’t mean they’re opposed. A poll asking, “isn’t obvious that we should have just killed al-Sadr years ago?” among Americans who recognize the name, would win 70-30. Ditto as to whether Iran should still have an airforce or a navy or a republican guard still breathing. Ditto as to whether the 3rdID shouldn’t go weapons inspecting some weekend in and around Damascus. I.E. being more gung-ho for the war than the current president is a viable position for a presidential candidate, if they get it right. The problem in Iraq is the fawning respect the US chooses to pay to national sovereignty as regards players like Syria or Iran. Red blooded americans such as Fred Thompson know this, and that is the core of their frustration with the prosecution of “the war” such as it has been done up to now.
A Hillary story:
Back in the 1990’s, she and Chelsea were about to go somewhere. Being who they were, they had about a dozen Secret Service agents with them. Chelsea was doing something that caused her to be running late. Hillary snapped: “You need to learn to be on time! Do you want to be like them?” As she said ‘them,’ she indicated the protective detail.
That’s just goddamn insulting, MHO. Let’s ignore the fact that the process to become a USSS agent is more selective than the process of becoming a dishonest lawyer married to a mildly-corrupt governor, or the rudeness involved in badmouthing people whose job involves jumping in front of bullets for other people. What might that say about her attitude towards people on her team?
Mid, on why GWB blows:
Arresting US citizens inside the US and then holding them incommunicado, signing the “No Child Left Behind” act, refusing to act when Mexican soldiers entered Texas and shot at USBP agents in late 2005, appointing Michael Chertoff to head DHS, creating DHS in the first place, terrorism watch lists with no accountability for the maintainers, claiming Saudi Arabia to be our allies…I’d go on, but i’m starting to depress myself.
Sunfish: are you sure the Hillary quote is true?
Alisa:
I couldn’t find the Hillary story on thar intarweb. Plenty of other things that could be confirmed that show the same behavior, but not the specific one I gave above (I found it offline).
For whatever it’s worth. There’s a pattern of similar behavior that could be confirmed, but the USSS is tight-lipped about these things.
Sunfish,
I’ve heard that tale (or something very similar before). Alas, I can tell you little more.
grepon le texan,
I think you’re right. I’ve heard some very dubious polls wrt the war. Polls in which someone who was against the war and someone who thought it wasn’t being prosecuted vigourously enough could answer the same question in the same way. It seems to me that any candidate is going to get a boost by articulating a coherent strategy of any description. W very obviously hasn’t done this. I suspect this is a major reason for the war not being popular.
Sunfish: I am glad that you mentioned pattern, because I think that there is a pattern of people making up this kind of stories about her. It’s not like I find the woman likable, or anything like that, mind you. she is a lawyer and a politician, after all, and she is married to Slick Willy, too.
Nick: exactly, that is what was my real problem with him ever since 9/11.
Pietr, there was a national leader called Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged, but he was never identified as a President. Does this mean we should discount anyone with an average name, like Thompson? In ‘The fountainhead’ the hero was called Roark, and in Atlas, one hero had the name Reardan, therefore any candidate with an ‘R’ at the front of their Family name is to be voted for?
I still think that some Libertarian Game Designer could do Ron Paul, and all libertarians, a propaganda world of good by creating a virtual ‘Free Life’ world! Let’s show what Earth might look like if better-than-other politicians (I was going to use ‘good’) are elected to high office, and keep their word! A better Second Life!
Any game Gamers out there?
Hilary:
+ Ruthless, competent
– Arrogant, power-mad
Obama
+ A Uniter, not a divider, charismatic
– All things to everyone, a Vorlon, like Cameron
Edwards
+ Looks good
– No substance
Guilani
+ Charismatic, dynamic
– Corrupt, deceitful
McCain
+ Integrity, nice bloke aura
– Lacks charisma, damaged by Iraq, his straight talking express seems to have made stops in BS Town
Really, I think the range of candidates is very poor; none have any real connection with the heartlands.
Watching Jessica Lynch last week, I rather hope she becomes President in the future. Imagine that, an honest person in the White House.
99 comments! Crikey, I’d better make it a round 100.
The winner of the US Presidential election will be (probably) whoever has the first letter of their surname nearest the start of the alphabet.
There is a huge psychological effect which comes from being the first child in a classroom to announce your presence each morning to your teacher, which often ends up as arrogance or even more dangerously, genuine charisma.
Hence in Britain we have Blair, Brown, Cameron, Churchill, Eden, Atlee, Callahagn, etc; and in the US, Bush, Carter, Clinton, etc. Yes, yes, this theory doesn’t hold all the time, as there is more than one causative agent behind charisma. Pour example, we have the completely opposite effect of the chip-on-the-shoulder charisma caused by being at the wrong end of the alphabet (eg. Wilson), being a woman in a man’s world (Thatcher nee Roberts), and many others, such as being a Hollywood actor, but here in Maturin Towers we’ll be looking at the two final candidates and going for the one whose surname starts with the letter nearest the start of the alphabet.
So if it’s Guiliani verus Clinton, then Clinton wins, because a ‘C’ trumps a ‘G’. And Ron Paul doesn’t have a hope. Not because he isn’t the most decent politician alive in the US, but because his surname is just too far down the alphabet. He ought to change it immediately to ‘Ron Alphamale’. That way he’d win every time.
Yes, politics really is a load of old horse manure. The sooner we all stop voting for these clowns, the better. Except of course, for Ron Alphamale, Gawd Bless ‘im.