MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 12:49:38 GMT -5
I'm not as big of a fan of political threads as I once was. No one is going to change my mind on anything, and I doubt I will change anyone else's mind on anything. But given the importance of the topic, and the fact that Iowa's primary was last night, might as well get this going.
For me right now, it's obviously way too early. I've been more focused on the democrat side than the Republican side. The way I see it, though I'm leaning Giuliani, I know that whoever gets the nod will likely have my vote. All of them will represent how I feel about things better than any of the democrat candidates, and I will take a look at things a little more once the NY primary gets a little closer.
My big fear is obviously Hillary winning the whole thing. She is not only grossly unqualified for the job, but her power hungry madness is flat out scary. Her policies are all wrong for the country, and there is no candidate more corrupt.
We're not a socialist society, yet she would be a socialist.
So for me right now, I have a stop Hillary attitude toward the campaign. Some people feel that she's unelectable, and would be an easier victory in November. So they want her to get in.
I don't feel that way. I would rather have the tougher opponent so I get that piece of mind of having her eliminated now.
Obama to date has been the second most popular candidate on the democrat side. He polls well against Republicans, but while that bothers me, it's better to have him than Hillary. He would be a better President than Hillary. I'm hoping for once, democrats recognize this, and actually NOT pick the worst choice possible.
Being a better President than Hillary is not big praise. I would make a better President than Hillary. On the other side of the spectrum, Jackass would make a better President than Hillary.
But Jackass and I aren't running against Hillary, so for you liberals out there, go choose Obama.
Obama is someone I could never vote for, but the reasons are different. To my knowledge, and I know I could be wrong, there are no real scandals with him. At least, nothing earth shattering. No corruption. Obama seems to be a man of principle. I don't agree with those principles, but they are there.
One huge distinction is that he will not alter his stance for the sake of politics. Hillary not only changes her position based on her audience, she changes her accent. Obama would be harder to attack at least on traditional negative campaign issues like flip flopping. Hillary changes her mind more than she changes her underwear. She couldn't even take a stand on something easy like giving illegal immigrants licenses.
So there is no personal grudge against Obama for me. The only issue with him, are his stances on the issues. Obviously, that's more than enough to prevent him from getting my vote, but in the nightmare case where a democrat wins the White House, I'd rather have an honest man, and hope that the minority Republican Congress can hold up some of the radical ideas as best as they can. I would also prey that he doesn't do too much damage with National Security, because I really find him naive there.
Yet I really hope the democrats nominate him. Even if he's tougher than Hillary, he's a better alternative.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 4, 2008 13:00:20 GMT -5
A couple of things.
I am more a McCain man than any. Balls, I dont get your Rudy infatuation. The guy is really a liberal in disguise. Its really funny how on 9/10/01 Rudy was the most hated man in NYC, and no one was happy with him. The next day the world changed, and so did Rudy, it seems. I am not buying. He is as scandal ridden as anyone, so you need to stop worrying about personal scandal while you admit to waving the flag for the guy. As to Hillary, I hate her as much or more than you. HOWEVER, I was comfortable all along with her WINNING the nonimation, cause that would hand the Presidency to the Republicans. Hillary is the most polarizing candidate out there, its stunning how badly many people hate her. Obama is dangerous, if you dont want a Democrat in the White House. Formidable.
That said, I could live with an Obama presidency, for a lot of reasons, over one of Hillary, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc et al.
Bottom line, Hillary will NOT be President.
In regards to the rest of the Republican field, I am more a Huckabee guy than a Romney guy, so last nights result was fine by me. Romney was hurt, and McCain can storm back in with a good showing in New Hampshire.
But whoever comes out of the side of the right, they have my vote. I would prefer it is not Rudy, however. He creeps me out, to be blunt.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 13:10:31 GMT -5
Part of what I like about Rudy is that his more leftist approach may entice the centrist voters. The swing voters. A hard line right winger will not have that shot. On 9/10/01, I felt that Rudy Giuliani was the best mayor of NYC in my lifetime. Rudy's economic plan is fine by me from what I've seen about it, and I believe that Rudy would be an effective leader when it comes to National Security. He has a lot of balls and will do the right thing rather than cave.
I think the ability to win is a big factor. I don't know if the other candidates have that as much as he does, even with his past. Time will tell.
But I'd still prefer Obama over Hillary. And I think an Obama presidency would be a disaster. The difference for me between Obama and Hillary is like the difference between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both are messed up when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. But Carter was at least honest.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 13:31:10 GMT -5
As opposed to what? The sterling foreign and domestic policy we have seen the past four years? LOL! If a good domestic policy means corruption on Harding and Coolidge levels and wiping your ass with the Constitution, and if a good foreign policy means disgracing the nation and alienating virtually the entire world, SIGN ME UP!
How does it feel pushing all your chips into the pile of the worst President ever? You know why Hillary Clinton has a chance? Because George W. Bush is on Andrew Johnson crap level. No quality Democrat will want to step into the firepit and get sidetracked by liberal/noecon post Bush bickering, and no real Republican will follow in Bush's tracks after his mess. If Bush wasn't such a clown, then I'm sure we'd have stronger Republican candidates than Huckabee and Romney. LOL!
So, not only has Bush made a mess of things for the past eight years, he will loom over things the next four to eight.
GOOD JOB REPUBLICANS!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 13:58:58 GMT -5
George W. Bush is not running. And he is still a better president than Clinton was. Clinton was just better at spinning and conning the public.
Fact is, Bush bashing is no longer important to me. It has no relevance to this election other than as a strategy by the democrats to steer the election away from their own lack of effective solutions. The Republican nominee will not be George Bush.
And I don't think the Republican list is weak. At minimum, it's no weaker than the democrat list. There is no one who will fuck this country up on the level that Hillary would on either side.
At this point, the future is more important than the past. I don't think Huckabee will be that big of a winner. I'm going to look for a candidate who will represent my feelings best on the most important issues to me, like taxes and national security.
Obama, from what I see, is the first democrat candidate with an actual shot at the nomination that actually has principles in over 30 years. I'm hoping he gets the nomination for that, even IF he'll be tougher to win.
It's very easy to bash Bush. It's not so easy to come up with real solutions and plans and to stick with them. Not liking Bush is not an excuse to put in someone who truly would be a nightmare and could do some serious longterm damage to this country on every level. That's Hillary.
McCain seems to be a guy who can do that, and Giuliani certainly isn't afraid to stick to his guns. Obama is the only one like that on the democrat side, even if I don't agree with his stances.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 14:15:38 GMT -5
Of course Bush bashing is not important, you have zero defense for it, and mounting one would be laughable. The fact that you just tried to spin Clinton's spin tactics into it, as if Bush did none of this, is even more laughable. Bush took every shitty quality from Clinton, which is quite extensive, and compounded it with a handful of other despicable acts. The comparison doesn't work anymore, and you'd just be screaming at a wall. Quit while you're behind.
Most Republicans I know despise him for taking the party by the ankles, dragging it though the mud, taking the US with him, and flushing it down the toilet.
For all you guys talk of liberals ruining things if they took office, you Republicans have fucked things up royally. Hillary Clinton getting a serious nod is more than enough proof of this. The fact that she has an outside shot is YOUR fault.
Thanks Republicans!
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 14:17:40 GMT -5
'It's very easy to bash Bush. It's not so easy to come up with real solutions and plans and to stick with them'
You mean like how it was easy to blame Clinton? You mean how Bush came up with no real solutions?
President Hillary Clinton would like to thank the 4 people on Hecklehouse and the Republican party for her shot at the Presidency. The GOP ineptness made it possible.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 14:24:58 GMT -5
It's not about defending Bush. I have no need to do that because he's not running for President. The Bush Presidency is a completely different topic than the 2008 election.
The Clinton presidency is far more relevant right now while Hillary's candidacy is alive. Hillary Clinton's serious candidacy has NOTHING to do with Bush. It is far more the result of the power that the Clintons still hold in that party. Her name recognition comes from her husband. Her entire political career is due to her husband. She accomplished nothing on her own, but because of the power she wields in her own party, she's got a serious shot. Hell, if she were old enough, I bet CHELSEA Clinton could pull off a serious bid.
Having power in your party makes a big difference, even to the detriment of your party if the wrong candidate gets the nod. See Bob Dole.
The worst thing Bush did was not taking advantage of his post 2004 victory to get more done. 2004-06 was a HUGE waste of time.
Hillary in the White House will be the fault of people who vote for her, not those that don't. There's no law that says if you don't like Bush, you have to put someone in who is not only more corrupt, but whose policies will drag this country to a socialist regime.
At least nominating Obama is a sign that character matters and that they don't want to go back to that disgusting Clinton administration. You can bash Bush all you want, but just because Clinton was better at spin, does not change that he was one of the worst presidents we ever had when it came to corruption.
At least Bush paid for his mistakes in the poll numbers.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 4, 2008 14:49:07 GMT -5
Wait....did you just admit that Bush made mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 15:05:34 GMT -5
Wow, take a pic and frame it.
Bush has everything to do with EVERY candidate. Trying to separate them is meaningless. People are touting Hillary because things were good for the common folk during Bill's run, and they think she can do the same and fix Bush's mess. They want it back to the way it was before Bush.
Are you guys telling me there aren't any better Republicans out there? Of COURSE there are. They are smart individuals who know following up GW is a death sentence.
Pretending like there will be a clean slate is sticking your head in the sand.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 15:28:16 GMT -5
Absolutely Bush made mistakes. I think when it comes to terrorism and national security, he did fine. I think his tax cuts worked and benefitted the economy. The economy is better today than when he took over. That's still true.
I'm overall glad he was President.
But absolutely he made mistakes.
He did not have the charisma to sell his policies to the public better. He was not a great communicator like Reagan by a long shot.
He had a mandate in 2004, AND both houses in Congress, and they did NOTHING to follow through on their agenda. For example, there is no excuse that the death tax repeal was not made permanent. You have both houses of Congress and the White House and you don't do what you promise? No excuse for that.
The media does make things look worse than they are, but it is the Bush Administration's responsiblity to show that.
When Bush won re-election in 2004, I'm pretty sure I was touting Rudy in 2008. If there are other, better hopefuls out there, I don't think they are in the national spotlight at this time. I think that the strongest GOP candidates are in the race. It's not like 1992, when the top democrats were afraid to run against Bush Sr. (Talk about a bad call).
I don't think there will be a clean slate. The democrats will try their best to run against Bush. It's their best strategy. Overall, I still don't believe the country's actual opinions on the issues lean more toward the extreme leftist ideals of Hillary and Obama. I think they do lean more toward the GOP side. I think that if both sides actually stuck to the issues, the GOP side would win.
That's why the democrats will try to make this as much about Bush as possible. His lack of popularity makes him drag down the rest of the party. Hopefully, the GOP candidate can keep the election as much about the issues as possible, because that's their best chance.
It will be a much better campaign with Obama as the nominee because I think the issues will be more important. Hillary will make it much more dirty than Obama.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 15:51:15 GMT -5
LOL! His mistakes was that he wasn't a great communicator? LOLOLOL! That's it? You're list is pretty slim and unconvincing.
That's like saying Charles Manson made mistakes, like not taking more time out to be a better musician. LOL!
Bush is the WORST president ever. THEE, WORST. In this day and age, that shouldn't be possible. All you can muster up is communicator and not taking advantage of his 'mandate'?
And the war on terror is a joke, and you will see the threats rise once the Democrats put heat on the Republicans, the same way you saw it while Kerry made a run at Bush and the way the Dems bopped the GOP for that 'mandate' Bush had. Iraq is a mess, Iran is giving us the finger, and the world told us to suck a dick. LOL!
THANKS REPUBLICANS! OH WAIT I SHOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 15:54:24 GMT -5
Bill Clinton was a far worse president than Bush. The difference is that he was slick. Communication skills are very important. But again, I listed more mistakes than just that. Please reread.
And like it or not, Clinton set the foundation for the world's affairs. He's not blameless. But he's also not relevant either--especially if Obama gets the nod.
This election is about the future. Would you actually vote for Hillary because you don't like Bush? If so, that's not too bright, considering Bush isn't running.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 4, 2008 15:54:30 GMT -5
See, this is why I dont get involved in this stuff, and I will probably be making an early exit out of here.
Iraq is not a mess, that is more spin. Lets not forget its a mess cause most of the Democrats were hoping for a loss over there, and it has not happened. Also, for all the crap Bush is being heaped, his approval rating is higher than the Democratic led Congress.
Thirdly, there are good Republican candidates.
Fourthly, the Republicans will win in 2008, which will prove the point that things are not as bad as you libs are spinning.
Thanks, see you guys later. Meet you in the other threads.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2008 16:17:53 GMT -5
And the mistakes you two are making is assuming I'm going to bat for Democrats. Democrat led congress was voted in to stop Republicans and all idiots like Pelosi are doing is stamping their feet and whining while Bush does what he pleases under the notion that he can do what he pleases as long as we are at war.
I like Obama because the only guy I like more is Paul and that's for reasons other than I think he would be a good prez. We are all in agreement in our disdain of Hillary.
And yeah, Clinton was slick. He held Iraq down under a boot with sanctions and no fly zone bombings. Bush dragged us into a war we will end up on the losing side of. The state of Iraq is not a media invention, it is a sad, harsh reality.
If things were so good, then Hillary Clinton would not have a shot, and guys like Huckabee and Romney would not get a GOP ticket.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2008 16:29:56 GMT -5
Ok, so now we have another issue that you brought up. The democrats were elected at the end of 2006 in part because of the unpopularity of the war effort. What have they done? Nothing. They have the majority in both houses. They could do a lot to end the war tomorrow if that was their real agenda.
No matter what, Hillary Clinton would have a shot at this nomination. The Clintons are still too powerful within that party, and too many democrats have rolled over for her. Seriously--how could someone with no experience, and no connection to a state, carpetbag and win the election? She is riding the coattails of Bill. And if she could win in NY, then absolutely she can grab that nomination whether it's deserving or not.
It's a very scary proposition.
And I still think she has a very real shot of getting the nomination.
This is the first election since 1952 that there is no effort to extend the previous administration.
It makes it very open. If Obama gets the nod, no matter who wins, everything will be fresh in the White House.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2008 18:44:19 GMT -5
So far, the Iowa victory has given Obama a huge boost in New Hampshire. As of today, he's up 37-27 over that bitch. That could of course change before the primary, but Iowa did give Obama a boost in NH.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 12:52:28 GMT -5
In today's news, the bitch now said she wouldn't have taken the US to war with Iraq. Talk about a desperate attempt to get votes. Does really think people are going to forget that she voted FOR the war, and didn't lift a finger for withdrawal until it became the more popular thing to do?
I hope she loses tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 7, 2008 13:18:02 GMT -5
that's mrs. bitch to you. lol
ny'ers should lose their right to vote for President for electing her.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 13:21:15 GMT -5
Your last sentence makes no sense.
Who's your choice right now? I'm pretty sure you're democrat, so I'm curious what your thinking is.
I'm very open right now on the Republican side.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 7, 2008 13:23:04 GMT -5
Actually, I'm a staunch Republican that's had it with George W. Bush. I also hate Rudy, who switched parties to get elected in NY. I'd like to see Mitt. I don't think the world is ready for President Huckabee. I liked McCain, but he's sorta floundering around.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2008 13:44:56 GMT -5
McCain is actually picking it up. He should win New Hampshire. In fact, many pundits claim that once he does that, the floodgates open, and he is the safe pick for the nomination. Thats fine by me, he has been my pick of this crop all along. The only "Republican" candidate I dont want to see get the nod is Rudy. I can live with any of them, but my hope is McCain.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 14:03:53 GMT -5
I hadn't realized you are a Republican because of all the anti-Bush stuff. Would you pick Obama over Rudy? Or Hillary over Rudy?
I said this before, but what's really interesting about this election is that this is the first time a previous administration is not being extended since 1952. No incumbent President and no current VP is on any ticket.
My worry about McCain is age and the ability to communicate to the public. I worry that he could be stiff, like Bob Dole (insert Viagra joke).
I have no doubt he would make an excellent President, but I worry about his electability. Dole was a terrible choice for the nomination.
Another fear I have is Bloomberg entering the race. He has no chance of winning but could siphon off enough GOP votes to put the democrat in.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2008 14:09:41 GMT -5
Bloomberg would siphon off as many or more Democratic votes. He is another liberal in disguise.
Enough with the age issue. 70 years old these days, in many cases, is the 50 of 20 years ago. I dont need a President who spends all day "communicating to the public." I want one who gets the job done. He is polling well around the board, and when push comes to shove he will get the nomination, I think. Add a strong VP to run with, and we have a winner.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 14:15:37 GMT -5
Bloomberg IS a liberal in disguise. NO QUESTION. But the average Joe doesn't know that. They think he's a Republican. And the last time I saw a poll with Bloomberg as a factor, he did take more votes away from Republicans than democrats. It would be an issue, not unlike what Nader did to Gore.
The age issue isn't a big deal with me, but it would be with Joe Public. You've got an old stiff person v. a charismatic young guy in Obama, or a no good evil witch. Obama v. McCain is a tough fight.
Put them on the same stage and it will require a HELL of a brilliant campaign on the part of McCain.
The sad part is, McCain is lightyears more qualified.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2008 14:35:52 GMT -5
Balls, not everyone wants the "charismatic young guy." There is a whole chunk of populace that wants that experience, especially in these troubling times.
And, no matter how much you whine, the American public deserves more credit at times. People will realize what side Bloomberg is on, and they will consider who is more qualified when it comes time to vote.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 14:41:07 GMT -5
Perot and Clinton did a great job double teaming Bush in 92. Perot, though clearly more conservative than Clinton, sipphoned off Bush votes. And I don't give that kind of credit to the American public. The fact that Hillary's candidacy has been taken so seriously is a perfect example of their shortcomings. The fact that she won the senate in NY TWICE, shows the shortcomings. The fact that Marion Barry won in DC after the crack scandal shows the shortcomings.
I think the best thing for the democrats is Bloomberg to run.
Bill Clinton's biggest asset in 1992 was his charisma. He ran a brilliant campaign, which combined with Bush's horrific campaign allowed him to come out of nowhere and win. Boxers/briefs. Play the sax. MTV. All that. Got him the White House.
Obama has that charisma factor. We could easily be seeing a replay of 1992 if he gets the nod and Bloomberg runs. I doubt Bloomberg would do as well as Perot, but it could be enough.
I don't discount McCain's qualifications. He has them. But I do worry about winnability.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 7, 2008 15:41:37 GMT -5
I am for Rudy..I like what he did for the city before 9/11 as well as after...I am a Republican but kind of draw the line with the heavy religious involvement and abortion so Rudy lines up with me perfectly....Don't think he'll get it done but here is to hoping.......
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 7, 2008 15:57:40 GMT -5
I could vote for Obama over Rudy, but would need to find out more about Obama. I know senators are revered in this country, but really, what do they do that makes them a good choice for president. That's why I like Mitt.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 7, 2008 16:18:35 GMT -5
Wow, just Wow. I'm with Tom...I'll probably make my entrance and exit here because I can see this thread degrading rapidly.
Let me say this...I am a liberal. At the same time, I despise most of my liberal cohorts because I feel that the vast majority of liberals are liberals for the wrong reasons. Liberals love to latch on to some pet (or worse yet, trendy) issue and run with it. i.e. the environment, race relations, health care. Most liberals are too stupid to comprehend macroeconomics and feel as though the economy is just one more issue...when in fact the economy is the parent issue in this country. When the economy is good, other issues are shored up.
The statement that George W Bush was a better President than Clinton just astonishes me. I don't care if you're a democrat or republican...the numbers simply don't support that claim in any way whatsoever. At least George H. Bush had the built-in excuse of inheriting a ticking time-bomb of a pending recession thanks to Voodoo Economics. George W. Bush turned the proverbial lemonade into lemons. Please people, I don't begrudge anyone the right to be a die-hard conservative, but at least let's speak in the realm of reality here.
I liked Bill Clinton. People think Bill Clinton was a great President for unemployment, a great President for social issues. The reality is that Bill Clinton didn't specifically do shit for unemployment or social causes.....he worked on the economy. Clinton along with Congress balanced the budget and fostered a thriving economy. In a thriving economy consumers can purchase more, businesses grow and employ more people, businesses have the additional funds to explore more environment friendly methods of operations, the more people that have jobs the less of a "need" to resort to crime, the more consumers purchase the better health care a company can afford to provide its employees, companies can afford to fund more education incentives, social service programs encourage more people to pursue higher education. That's what happened under the Clinton Presidency...I think it would be as moronic for me, a democrat, to give all of the credit to Clinton, as it is the way most Conservatives would paint the economic boom of the Clinton Presidency as a function solely due to the "conservative congress." Anyway, I digress...
Having said all of that, my personal choice for President differs from you Conservatives in only one aspect - economic strategies. My first preference for 2008 would be Rudy because he has implied somewhat of an adversity to Reaganomics, a trait I applauded in other conservatives like Jack Kemp. However, I think he is unelectable, I think all other Republican candidates are tried and true "Reagan Republicans" (and if that economic strategy floats your boat, then so be it) which I want no part of, therefore I am leaning toward Edwards at this time.
My only problem with Hilary is what Tom alluded to...too polarizing. She would have a difficult time in employing the very same policies that her husband did because so many people in Congress find her personally objectionable, justified or not. Obama is a fad...his shine will tarnish after time when things start getting serious.
On a superficial level (which counts for something) I feel as though the only candidates that give off a truly Presidential vibe are Edwards and McCain. Huckabee is way too off on the religious tip, plus no one named "HUCKABEE" is going to be voted as the most powerful man in the free world. Mitt Romney is a Mormon - case closed. We are not as open-minded as many would like to believe, and race, sex, and religion (especially someone of a somewhat fringe faith) will still prove to be great obstacles in running for President.
|
|