What's your take?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we let an anti-gun candidate win the primary, then we have only ourselves to blame for the choices we get.
Click to expand...

Yes. Vote in your damn primaries people. It is so frustrating when people sleep through all the political action and then whine in November. The real election is during the primary. Getting good candidates is the key to having good election results. If you dont participate in this process, the election will be decided before it happens, usually in a way you dont approve of.
 
What's your take?

I think we're hopelessly and catastrophically screwed.:what: The next couple of election cycles are going to change things for the worse nationally.

Due to Bush's tilting at windmills in Iraq, and spending like a Great Society Democrat, the republicans are going to get their collective arses handed to them in the mid-term elections. They've been given the chance to shine and we've barely gotten a faint glow from them.:fire: Congress will shift left this November by a comfortable margin.:mad:

From the current rogues gallery of wannabes, there isn't one on the list I could in good conscience vote for as president. Rice will have my vote if she runs.
The best we can possibly hope for as it stands now, is for the elections to create an absolute gridlock where nothing neither helping or harming can be accomplished. Unfortunately that leaves running the country in the hands of unelected bureaucratic pukes for four years.

We're still screwed.:uhoh:
 
Some politicos are quietly saying conditions are ripening for a 3rd party candidate. Not sure I agree.

Condi may be attractive as a candidate after she has proven herself as an elected official. Problem for me is I want to wash off anything having to do with the Bush family. Full stop.
 
Given that Tom Delay won the straw poll, does that hold any water for his viablity? He's got an excellent gun rating from GOA and NRA.

However, I wonder if the recent lobbyist scandals would hurt him enough to bring him out of contention. Plus, we are looking at a BIG time politician, we are talking the biggest out there in the Repub circles. Might make for a viable canidate, but also we get stuck with a true politician.

wish Condi would run.

Nick
 
- as regards their stand on guns and RKBA?
Click to expand...

Condi Rice is not on the list. And stop pretending that she stands separate from the war in Iraq, taking shots at Bush on the one hand and fawning over Condi Rice on the other. If all you care about is her support of gun ownership, leave it at that. She's a hawk, don't kid yourself. Her job is to position Iran and Syria as the next bad guys. Listen to her sometime. I support all that as long as mothers understand why their sons and daughters are dying in the process and they were given the straight story.

What I don't get is pretending that Rice is that different from George Bush, except that Bush is better qualified by way of experience as a Governor of a large State (Texas). Which one you prefer to watch and listen to is superficial.

Rice, like Powell, is too good for the ugly process of getting elected. Slipping in as Cheney's replacement would be perfect.

We have no idea who the real Condi Rice is as a political animal. All we know is that she represents someone else and that most foreign policy is per her advice, planning, or concurrence.
 
Condi may be attractive as a candidate after she has proven herself as an elected official. Problem for me is I want to wash off anything having to do with the Bush family.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment entirely and believe she lied to us, or at least exaggerated to a criminal degree when presenting the case for war. But watching her perform her duties as Secretary of State has given me some hope. Unlike the Bush family, which seems to have been clubbed upside the head with the stupid stick when it comes to genetics, Rice is brilliant. Yes, she could be considered a treacherous liar, or at the very least a cynical pragmatist, but I think that may be just what we need to negotiate the treacherous political waters of the 21st century. The polar opposite would be some sort of naive ideological moonbat like Jimmy Carter, which is exactly what we don't need. Granted Rice played a crucial role in getting us into this mess; that doesn't negate the fact that she's well equipped to get us out of it. I think she is.

She's a hawk, don't kid yourself. Her job is to position Iran and Syria as the next bad guys. Listen to her sometime.
Click to expand...

I have become more and more of a hawk myself. I originally thought that an Iraqui occupation was unwinnable and that while Saddam Hussein was an A-hole, it wasn't worth the cost and effort to depose him. I now think I may have been wrong on both counts. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it was worth it, and the war may have been winnable, had the arrogant, isolated trioka of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush listened to their generals and done the job right. Instead, they punished anyone who disagreed, leaving incompetent yes men like Tommy Franks to prosecute the war according to their egg-headed ideological visions.

Ultimately I think Rice shoulders her share of the blame for this too. I just believe, after watching her in action especially regarding Iran, that she is much, much smarter and more capable than the chickenhawk trio of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush.

BTW, while I don't think war with Syria or Iran is a good idea right now, I agree with Rice that they are "bad guys."
 
I think Rice is nothing more than a theoretical candidate for discussion on internet forums.

I don't think she has any intention of running. If she did, she would not get the Republican nomination. And if she did by some freak circumstance get the nomination, she would not win, regardless of whatever kind of freaky left winger the Democrats run, including Hillary.

I think to underestimate the significance of her race is naive. I do not think black people, the majority of whom consistently support Democratic ideas, will vote for her. To assume they would underestimates the intelligence of black people. Do you really think they are going to say, "Condi is against everything I support politically, but since she is black I will vote for her"? No that won't happen. The majority will still vote Democratic. A few will even villify her, and call her an "Uncle Tom". But the majority will just silently vote Democrat.

Additionally, in the rural south, she will run poorly. White males in the rural south will not be enthusiastic about her. I don't think they will go out and vote for Hillary over Condi, I just think they won't show up at the polls. Additionally, a lot of rural white males have become dis-infranchised with Bush, and are eager to vote Democrat in 2008, if the Dems will only run a more moderate candidate. If that happens, Condi would be blown out of the water in the south.

When the dust settles, I predict the Republicans will run McCain/Giuliani, and the Democrats will run Clinton/Richardson, and the Republicans will win.
 
a lot of rural white males have become dis-infranchised with Bush, and are eager to vote Democrat in 2008
Click to expand...

Cite your source please.

I am a rural white male and have seen/heard nothing of the sort.
 
Having thought about it for a week, I think the posters who call Rice unelectable are correct. All the Dems would have to do is play an endless loop of Rice saying, "I believe the title of that memo was 'Al Quaeda Determined to Attack U.S." It would be even more devestating than, "I voted for the bill before I voted against it."
 
Lets see theres Jeb Bush
Click to expand...

Jeb would get a NO from me. I am now dissapointed and tired of the Bush family "republicans" who have turned away from values they only give lip service too. I don't want to see another family member pushed in who will put special interests ahead of us more than (and more obviously upfront) any other president I can remember except for possibly Clinton. The republican party is very fractured right now if anyone can tell.

I now understand why Reagan did not really trust Bush Sr. much at all.
 
hwp,

I don't have a source. I live in the rural south. It is my impression that man rural white males would vote for a Democrat, if they ran a moderate; especially if the moderate Democrat ran against Condoleeza.
 
it's far more likely I'd vote Libertarian again.
Click to expand...

+1

The Republican party is just a pro-life version of statist authoritarianism.

I'm sick of it. I want *real* change and am not settling for the lesser of 2 evils anymore.
 
A Libertarian, no matter how smart, decent, and appealing to the voters, won't win... It will either be a limp, worthless Republican... or a dangerous, UN-licking, utopian socialist Democrat. We are in dire shape if we expect a presidential candidate with the cojones to keep us merely in the frying pan... I fear we are even now cresting the apex of that toss, which will take us directly into the fire.
 
Guys, guys, GUYS!

How many times must I point out that it depends on the state you're in? If you live in a swing state then sure, vote for the lesser of two evils. But if the electoral votes (you remember those, right?) of your state are a foregone conclusion, then VOTE YOUR BLOODY CONSCIENCE!!!
 
But if the electoral votes (you remember those, right?) of your state are a foregone conclusion, then VOTE YOUR BLOODY CONSCIENCE!!!
Click to expand...

My conscience wouldn't allow voting for any third party I know of. But then I am not resisting authority and am not anti-establishment. I am only concerned about the legitimacy of authority and its exercise. I am one who believes the Executive branch has more integrity than Congress or the Supreme Court. It is the single branch where accountability can be traced to one person. It is also the only one where term of office is definitely temporary and for which legacy will be closely examined.

Until Democrats reinvent themselves, it is a foregone conclusion that I will vote Republican, warts and all. If a candidate is going to be libertarian, he will have to be a Republican to get my vote. My job is not to pick a fantasy third party but to work on what I consider to be those GOP "warts". To me that would mean setting aside divisive social issues and concentrating on real government, the less the better. The sooner abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant to elections, the better off and more rational we will all be.
 
REALGUN

You haven't justified your decision not to vote 3rd party, whatever it may be. All you stated is that you think the executive branch stand apart from the legislative and judicial AND that your only choices in your view are Democrat or Republican.

But you haven't connected the two at all, at least not the way I read your post. It sounded like your opinion of the executive branch means that you have to vote for the best person for the job, but you definitely aren't doing that if your Republican with warts is less qualified than a 3rd party candidate.

I'm not criticizing. I just don't see the connection between the two points you were making and am trying to figure out how somebody can put the executive branch on such a pedestal and hold such a high standard to the person who occupies that pedestal, yet still "settle" for voting for someone who obviously has issues.

I think that if more people got off the whole idea of 3rd party will never win and started voting for the candidate they actually thought should win, 3rd party candidates, someday, might actually have a chance of winning. Just look at all the people on this board who refuse to vote 3rd party because of their chance of success (or lack thereof). Eventually, the rest of the country would come to realize that there are more than 2 parties out there. Just because that's the way it's been for such a long time doesn't mean that's the way it always has to be. Not voting for the "best" candidate because you want to vote for a "winner" is folly, IMO.
 
There is no third party I would consider joining, and I have studied them all. I like being a Republican, and I like George Bush. He's a good President. It doesn't really matter so much, because I just need a party that is most likely to keep Democrats from winning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top