Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[hectorberlioz]

Yeah, one state out of many more. It's not a losing issue in FL...Rudy also campaigned on it.

(Note: This is not making my view known on the issue).

[hectorberlioz]

SLIMEBAG OF THE DECADE

This will disturb you...a lot.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

John Edwards also out (Robert Novak hypothesizes that Obama promised him the Attorney General spot).

Aw, crap. I'd just mailed my ballot with his name on it.

[hectorberlioz]

Karma for voting pro-choice, even though you are pro-life.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, come on, Hec. The Republican party's family values have gone down the crapper. Abortion is not really the dividing issue between the parties any more, as evidenced by the fact that only two of the Republican candidates (Huckabee and Paul) are solidly pro-life. The Republican politicians ceased to care so long ago they're even starting to give up appearance. Now what it's really about is currying favour with big money, and that I can not, as a Christian, support. If Huckabee or Paul ends up as the candidate for the GOP, I'll vote for him in the election, but if not...none of the others are sincere. Then again, none of the Democratic candidates are worth two bits this year. It's just a pretty sorry election, all around, and I just have to do my best with it.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

SLIMEBAG OF THE DECADE

This will disturb you...a lot.

WHAT a moronic deuche. That's it, that's all I've got.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Oh, come on, Hec. The Republican party's family values have gone down the crapper. Abortion is not really the dividing issue between the parties any more, as evidenced by the fact that only two of the Republican candidates (Huckabee and Paul) are solidly pro-life. The Republican politicians ceased to care so long ago they're even starting to give up appearance. Now what it's really about is currying favour with big money, and that I can not, as a Christian, support. If Huckabee or Paul ends up as the candidate for the GOP, I'll vote for him in the election, but if not...none of the others are sincere. Then again, none of the Democratic candidates are worth two bits this year. It's just a pretty sorry election, all around, and I just have to do my best with it.

McCain voted once against a pro-life cause out of twenty one votes. And in three he abstained. To me, this shows his record is still almost all the way pro-life. And he approves of abortion in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at stake. I disagree with him about this. The only time I'd accept abortion is where there is no way to save the baby and the life of the mother is in jeopardy because of her pregnancy. But the fact is, McCain's position on abortion is a HECK of a lot closer to what's right than any of the Democrats' positions are. They are fully, visibly supporting a woman's "right to choose," and any Democrat president would undoubtedly appoint two liberal candidates to the Supreme Court in their term. This would make it impossible to get Roe v. Wade overturned for another thirty years. If McCain was in office, however, he would nominate conservatives to those seats.

The number of children that would be aborted if we elected a Democrat, and that democrat nominated liberals to the Supreme Court, is appalling to imagine. Thirty more years of Roe v. Wade.

McCain or Romney would be incomparably better than any of the Democrat contenders. They oppose abortion and McCain (I don't know as much about Romney) voted against pro-choice bills on many occasions, and voted in favor, in the Senate, of many pro-life bills. It is absurd to say that the Democratic and Republican contenders here are the same, or that because the Republicans have loosened their anti-abortion stand to some extent, we are justified in voting for people who say they are pro-choice.

President Bush did get two conservatives onto the Supreme Court. So although he doesn't have the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade himself, he did the best he could. This could help the pro-life cause if we could get two more conservatives on the court through the next president.

[tolkienfan]

I watched the Republican debate (even though it was at the same time as American Idol). I thought it was interesting... I got a little bored of McCain and Romney hogging the stage though. Paul barely had any time at all. I guess I was most impressed by Huckabee and Romney. I think I liked what Romney was saying about immigration better, and I don't think Huckabee got a chance to talk about the environment. Most of the rest I agreed with Huckabee more. They didn't get around to all of the issues with all of the candidates so it's kind of hard to compare. I though the Putin's eyes question was weird and took too much time.

[hectorberlioz]

Gwai, I've got a lot to say...but I'll save it for tomorrow.

But for now, two opinions

Dinesh D'Souza makes the great point (or poses the good question)...would we be in the fight we are now for the GOP candidate if Bush had chosen a VP who had aspirations to run? I like it how it is. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/200...he-evil-party/

Dean Barnett ponders the future of the GOP party:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/670mqvok.asp

Matt Lewis at Townhall does some good analysis of why Rudy failed:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/096a8...d-6b4bad3e8473
Good point of his: Rudy was a frontrunner, and he never placed higher than 3rd...a low third. A bizarre campaign.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree, hector, and I'd add that it's great to see people getting energised and enthused by politics at a grass roots level.

My concerns would more be around it being too media-obsessed. I've been following this thread since the start and the number of posts about actual policy (as opposed to perception/image) is very small indeed.

The impression I get from here is that policy matters are only touched on in a very superficial way, almost like a football team's stats (e.g. a candidate might be described in terms like "weak on foreign policy but strong on the economy"). These dimensions then get mapped against supposed electoral constructs (e.g. soccer moms) who respond to particular dimensions.

i.e., it's meta-politics, not politics. Or, if you prefer, a 10-month beauty pageant.

I'm not having a go at the US specifically, everywhere is getting more and more like that. Just an observation.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

it made me laugh when I wrote it.


I would have to say 'information overload'. There is so much info, and so constant, that if you glance at a story one minute, you might not bother to see the correction to it five minutes later.


And endorsing McCain.

John Edwards also out (Robert Novak hypothesizes that Obama promised him the Attorney General spot).


Indeed.


Ok...I gotta admit that one went past me.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Gwai, I've got a lot to say...but I'll save it for tomorrow.

But for now, two opinions

Dinesh D'Souza makes the great point (or poses the good question)...would we be in the fight we are now for the GOP candidate if Bush had chosen a VP who had aspirations to run? I like it how it is. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/200...he-evil-party/

Dean Barnett ponders the future of the GOP party:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/670mqvok.asp

Matt Lewis at Townhall does some good analysis of why Rudy failed:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/096a8...d-6b4bad3e8473
Good point of his: Rudy was a frontrunner, and he never placed higher than 3rd...a low third. A bizarre campaign.

Gaffer. Really. If you're building your impression of the American political scene based on the interpretations of one 20 year old music student who doesn't read a newspaper, you're entitled to your misconceptions. I think it's tremendous that hector is as interested as he is, but you can't believe he's typical. I seriously doubt most of the young people here would be anything but outliers in a graph of the political spectrum.

There's only "information overload" when your information is the blog woorld, and other completely out there, no peer review types of propaganda. Actual news outlets spend somewhat less time handicapping.

If the Bush administration had not been COMPLETELY self-absorbed, petty, punitive and corrupt, the GOP would be having a much better time, in general, regardless of running a VP. All this talk of "change" (from both sides of the political spectrum) resonates because the only thing all America agrees on is "Those people are crazy, and mean crazy." It's not exactly a policy mandate.

[Lief Erikson]

There is a certain minimum of respect, Sis, that is due to every leader, whether he be the President of the United States or the President of Entmoot.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Gaffer. Really. If you're building your impression of the American political scene based on the interpretations of one 20 year old music student who doesn't read a newspaper

Not at all. It's based mostly on what I see on the television, read in the papers and online and listen to on the radio. It's struck me that there is very little focus anywhere on the actual policies or programme.

Of course, in the caucasuses (?) themselves it may well be a different story, and that's what impresses me in a positive way about your system.

However, I would call it information underload. There is so much crap out there that people are confused and attracted to the simple solution.

Lief, a leader almost always gets respect by default. When they treat their people with contempt, however, they lose it. I've been following US politics since Nixon and Bush is by far the worst president I've known. He has NIL respect for your constitution and traditions, and less for the common people of your country.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is a certain minimum of respect, Sis, that is due to every leader, whether he be the President of the United States or the President of Entmoot.

I don't believe I've been disrespectful, Lief. "Atypical", as regards hector's interest in politics, is a compliment. I'm politically active, remember. Actually, I mostly see "atypical" as a compliment.

George Bush has helmed an unbelievably corrupt and incompetent administration, by any measurable standard, including public opinion. That, more than anything else, has given the GOP trouble in this election.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Gaffer. Really. If you're building your impression of the American political scene based on the interpretations of one 20 year old music student who doesn't read a newspaper, you're entitled to your misconceptions. I think it's tremendous that hector is as interested as he is, but you can't believe he's typical.

You're trying to diminish my readership!

There's only "information overload" when your information is the blog woorld, and other completely out there, no peer review types of propaganda. Actual news outlets spend somewhat less time handicapping.

And if you read newspapers, you're almost a day behind the news. If you only read newspapers, you'd never catch any corrections, because they're nicely tucked away. I do read newspapers, btw...though I can't afford (and refuse to buy) the big newspapers. Also you overlook the fact that all the major newspapers/news sources have websites. Why read the same AP or REUTERS or NYT story five times in different newspapers when I can read it online? Nice try sis.

[brownjenkins]

You are spot-on Gaffer. Elections, especially of the Presidental kind, are mostly beauty pagents. Nearly without fail, the most attractive/charismatic candidate has won the Presidency when it comes to the general election. In fact, I still think the GOP may try hard to get Mitt the nomination, if he is close enough, for this very reason.

10-15% look to policy, but a vast majority vote on one or two moral issues (i.e. abortion/pro-choice, religious/secular, marriage history, etc.) with no concern over the really important issues that Presidents can actually do something about. A candidate's economic and/or foreign policy plans can be extremely impractical, but if they've got enough charm, it simply doesn't matter.

Very few due the research, they just vote on a whim. All you have to do is look at the fluctuating polls and number of people that call themselves undecided even on the day of the election. Anyone who cares to do the research should have been able to decide which candidates they would support, and in what order of preference, months ago.

People, in general, are extremely shallow and narrow-minded when it comes to choosing leadership.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You're trying to diminish my readership!


And if you read newspapers, you're almost a day behind the news. If you only read newspapers, you'd never catch any corrections, because they're nicely tucked away. I do read newspapers, btw...though I can't afford (and refuse to buy) the big newspapers. Also you overlook the fact that all the major newspapers/news sources have websites. Why read the same AP or REUTERS or NYT story five times in different newspapers when I can read it online? Nice try sis.

Specious, my friend Mr. President. You're at a college of somesort, correct? I suspect they have 'big" newspapers around, somewhere. So, even without extending yourself financially, you might be able to acquire a looksee. The same thing you refer to as a benefit of on-line research is also a cost. No one needs to get it right, because they can change their minds so easily. This makes commentators even more liable than candidates to go for simple sound-bite answers to complicated questions. They need to bring you in from the top of the Google list, and that doesn't make for good reporting. Reporters for serious magazines and newspapers still try a little harder.

Try the Christian Science monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/primaries08/

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are spot-on Gaffer. Elections, especially of the Presidental kind, are mostly beauty pagents. Nearly without fail, the most attractive/charismatic candidate has won the Presidency when it comes to the general election. In fact, I still think the GOP may try hard to get Mitt the nomination, if he is close enough, for this very reason.

10-15% look to policy, but a vast majority vote on one or two moral issues (i.e. abortion/pro-choice, religious/secular, marriage history, etc.) with no concern over the really important issues that Presidents can actually do something about. A candidate's economic and/or foreign policy plans can be extremely impractical, but if they've got enough charm, it simply doesn't matter.

Very few due the research, they just vote on a whim. All you have to do is look at the fluctuating polls and number of people that call themselves undecided even on the day of the election. Anyone who cares to do the research should have been able to decide which candidates they would support, and in what order of preference, months ago.

People, in general, are extremely shallow and narrow-minded when it comes to choosing leadership.

Unfortunately, BJ's analysis is pretty close to the truth. Choosing our next president (which I believe we do) doesn't mean that we do it intelligently.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Specious, my friend Mr. President. You're at a college of somesort, correct? I suspect they have 'big" newspapers around, somewhere. So, even without extending yourself financially, you might be able to acquire a looksee. The same thing you refer to as a benefit of on-line research is also a cost. No one needs to get it right, because they can change their minds so easily. This makes commentators even more liable than candidates to go for simple sound-bite answers to complicated questions. They need to bring you in from the top of the Google list, and that doesn't make for good reporting. Reporters for serious magazines and newspapers still try a little harder.

Try the Christian Science monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/primaries08/

You know that bloggers are a regular feature at major events right? John McCain and other candidates (including the Democrat candidates) regularly invite bloggers. They are getting access like the traditional journalists do... Politico.com is one such web-based source. The CNN debate last night (and the one this coming evening) are LA Times/Politico co-sponsored.

The traditional media still have their place: peer-reviewed journals are still very important. Not sure they can fit into 'news flow' though. People don't open their One or two Christian Science Monitor magazines to see what happened last night.

The CSM...not one of my regular stops. Thanks for reminding me.

[tolkienfan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are spot-on Gaffer. Elections, especially of the Presidental kind, are mostly beauty pagents. Nearly without fail, the most attractive/charismatic candidate has won the Presidency when it comes to the general election. In fact, I still think the GOP may try hard to get Mitt the nomination, if he is close enough, for this very reason.

10-15% look to policy, but a vast majority vote on one or two moral issues (i.e. abortion/pro-choice, religious/secular, marriage history, etc.) with no concern over the really important issues that Presidents can actually do something about. A candidate's economic and/or foreign policy plans can be extremely impractical, but if they've got enough charm, it simply doesn't matter.

Very few due the research, they just vote on a whim. All you have to do is look at the fluctuating polls and number of people that call themselves undecided even on the day of the election. Anyone who cares to do the research should have been able to decide which candidates they would support, and in what order of preference, months ago.

People, in general, are extremely shallow and narrow-minded when it comes to choosing leadership.

Hey, I'm trying. I've never even looked at politics before and it's a little overwhelming along with everything else. Am I too late to start doing the research? Usually when I try to figure out what the candidates really would do about the issues, not just what they say on TV, I get more confused. I don't even know what I think about some things. Should I just not vote?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

Hey, I'm trying. I've never even looked at politics before and it's a little overwhelming along with everything else. Am I too late to start doing the research? Usually when I try to figure out what the candidates really would do about the issues, not just what they say on TV, I get more confused. I don't even know what I think about some things. Should I just not vote?

No you should definitely vote. Politics is super complicated...you can only juggle a few concerns at a time. You're doing more than most people, and thats good enough. We can't have nobody vote.

(And BJ is just cynical! Cynical!)

PS: I'm trying to find some candidate calculator...it was one of the better ones.
HERE IT IS: http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html