Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

The reason i believe Nader to be the reason Gore lost is he was running as a Green Party Candidate whose primary objective is to be environmentally friendly.... and seriously folks when you think environment i guaruntee Gore is in the top 3 if not first person you think of. He wasnt running because he thought a candidate didnt support the right issues, he was running because he is Ralph nader and is an egotistical moron. Sure he did great things years ago but since then he has actually hurt the same causes he pretends to be supporting. And if Nader hadnt run Ill bet you good money Gore would have recieved at least 954 more votes than Bush in Florida.

100% agreement. Nader's plethora of issue institutions sets back consumer and environmental protection by YEARS. Only a few of them deserve any office space. And they suck up the energy of activists until they burn them out. It has just eviscerated the Left.

Look at the institutions that matter. The Sierra Club. Oxfam. The AFSC. The Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center for Science in the Public Interest. These are the go-to guys on the topics of interest to people in the environment and justice. None of them are Nader organizations. There's a reason for that.

Also lets not forget that Gore won the popular vote. So its not a matter of people being more upset with the Democrats that year, it was a matter of the electoral college and Nader made it so that Florida, a very green state, was not won by the man it should have been won by.

I've always thought personally there should be two rounds of elections. One to find the top two candidates and then a second round where there are only two candidates. That way one of those two does get the majority share and consituiences cant be split in two by egomaniacs.

There's a simple solution, as the Framers intended. No tickets. If there had been no tickets, the 2000 election would have given us Bush/Gore or Gore/Bush. Either way would have been better for the COUNTRY than Bush/Cheney. And not because Cheney's a corrupt warmonger, but because 1/2 the country wanted the other guy. Eliminating tickets makes a bi-partisan solution (which is really all the country cares about, guys) not only possible, but likely. Where it's legal, it works.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Giant ego aside, people generally seem to hate Nader because he has the nerve to run for election in a two party system. What exactly is wrong with that?

Nope. I don't hate Independents. I hate useless egotists.

Why doesn't the Green party choose a leader who isn't, as it seems, universally loathed?

You can't have read my links. Nader is NOT the leader of (either) Green Party. You know, people DO that work, give them credit. Nader has more name recognition than people doing the work. So he gets more press coverage for the issues, and may get more votes. BUT HE'S NOT A GREEN.

In this case, why not change the electoral system so that the President is elected by the popular vote? It would still be democratic, of course.

The short answer is, that's not the kind of country we are. We are a federation. States still have rights. The Electoral College system was designed (as was our bi-cameral legislature) as a compromise when getting a Constitution at all was in debate. We didn't degenerate into civil war then, because we had brilliant statesmen who designed a compromise.

The long answer is, you just need to look at the electoral map to see what a catastrophe that would be. Dems would run in the cities, and Reps would run in the country. And they'd never have to give a fig as to what minorities on any side wanted. Destroy the country.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

There's a simple solution, as the Framers intended. No tickets. If there had been no tickets, the 2000 election would have given us Bush/Gore or Gore/Bush. Either way would have been better for the COUNTRY than Bush/Cheney. And not because Cheney's a corrupt warmonger, but because 1/2 the country wanted the other guy. Eliminating tickets makes a bi-partisan solution (which is really all the country cares about, guys) not only possible, but likely. Where it's legal, it works.

I agree!

I'd actually like to see political parties outlawed all together. I prefer to vote for individuals.

On electoral vote vs. popular vote, I don't really think that it is that essential these days. In the days of the framing, we were talking about a much smaller pool of electors. The individual states had a lot more power because they were small in number, and each had a relatively equal number of electors.

These days, some of those small states only really have power if the elections are close. And even then, they don't really because the difference in elector numbers is so large. The system does not give more power to all the states, it simply gives more power to swing states. Just look at this map of spending in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...nAttention.png

Not only that, but it adds to the divisions we already see in our country. If a president wins enough states, no matter what the combination of big or small, he can effectively choose to ignore the ones he did not. The very system that gives more power to the states to choose a winner takes away power from those who pick the loser.

By comparison, in a popular vote, every vote matters. Instead of targetting your campaign to win just enough of a majority in each state, and little more, while ignoring those you have in your pocket, you have to target your campaign towards the entire voting populace. If you choose to purely spend all your time in the cities, you'd lose because even 70% of that vote (which is practically unheard of) would not overcome the rural losses.

You wouldn't see the situation you do now either where many people in very blue or very red states simply don't vote because they know it is already decided.

States already have a lot of power through the Senate. They have little to fear. For the general election, I think the advantages of a popular vote outweigh the current method.

[hectorberlioz]

That is actually a very interesting perspective, Sis. Afterall, Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected Prez and VP respectively, and they hated eachother.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Haradrim

The reason i believe Nader to be the reason Gore lost is he was running as a Green Party Candidate whose primary objective is to be environmentally friendly.... and seriously folks when you think environment i guaruntee Gore is in the top 3 if not first person you think of. He wasnt running because he thought a candidate didnt support the right issues, he was running because he is Ralph nader and is an egotistical moron.

The same could be said for most presidential candidates (inset Mit Romneys name here). Id hardly single out Nader for that… And what folks are forgetting is that a LOT more democrats voted for Bush then voted for Nader. You can froth at the mouth all you want for Nader “sabotaging” the 2000 election as is trendy with self rightious democrats these days but you’ve GOT to admit that swing democrats going conservative or not voting at all were MUCH more responsible for the result than swing democrats going green. And as far as the ego thing, are you going to think you are so special when you know you have absolutely no chance at being elected? When youll be lucky to get high single digits? Everyone who voted for Nader knew he wasn’t going to be elected. The majority of votes for Nader were protest votes. Its not like they didn’t know Al Gore was running…They voted for Nader anyway because they didn’t particularly like either candidate and they wanted to send a message about policies they were interested in. Not to actually see Nader in office… And NONE (not one) of those votes mattered EXCEPT for in Florida (maybe). But rest assured the votes made by “Bush Democrats” made much more of a difference in the end. Come on folks don’t you remember the complete turning of the south to the Red Side of the force during the 2000 election? It hasn’t been that long really…

By the way, no Americans care about the green party. 99% of Americans don’t even know what it is or certainly didnt in 2000. And those that are passionate enough about those issues know very well the differences between Ralph Nader and the true environmental movement. Generally, people who voted for Nader voted for him because of his activist anti-big business consumer advocate reputation (legitimate or not). Not because he was a tree hugger.

And speaking of Independents, what ever happened to the Reform Party?

[brownjenkins]

Also, GWB the candidate was quite different the GWB the pres. He did a great job creating the "Compassionate Conservative" persona, then throwing it out once he got elected. Much like Reagan, he ran to win as opposed to running on principles he truely held, and he pulled it off because he was a governor without the legislative history that follows senators.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

An interesting opinion on George H.W. Bush.

Nostalgia for GHW Bush? What is the world coming to?

[ElfGal]

From what I've seen of Hilary, I think that she isn't a Christian and wants to make America communist. Remember her husband's presidency? He resigned just before he got impeached so he would still LOOK GOOD. They were going to get divorced but didn't, so they would still LOOK GOOD. She wouldn't be a good choice. I personally would vote for McCain, because he's a Christian and I agree with a lot of his opinions. One thing I don't like about him is that he's pro-abortion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by ElfGal

From what I've seen of Hilary, I think that she isn't a Christian and wants to make America communist. Remember her husband's presidency? He resigned just before he got impeached so he would still LOOK GOOD. They were going to get divorced but didn't, so they would still LOOK GOOD. She wouldn't be a good choice. I personally would vote for McCain, because he's a Christian and I agree with a lot of his opinions. One thing I don't like about him is that he's pro-abortion.

Well, yeah...the Clintons have certainly played their game well, when it comes to thier marital status. As a famous conservative once put it, "Hillary really does love Bill. And Bill really does love Bill."

Are they Christians? Culturally they are, but Hillary's Bible-quoting has so far been....WAY off the mark. I don't think most politicians study their Bible very much

John McCain IS pro-life...he has voted against pro-life bills, however.

[hectorberlioz]

Hypothesis: When candidates go out on the campaign trail, they suddenly get all warm, fuzzy, and humble.

Obama: When he was Mr. President of the Harvard Law Review, he was a "cold fish", arrogant, and "above".

Huckabee: Before he was "Mr Nice Guy How Dare Anyone Use Slime On The Campaign Trail", this former Baptist Minister was known for his short temper.

Giuliani: Mr. high and mighty Metropolitan Opera, Gay Rights, Abortion...Suddenly: Mr. NASCAR, "personally opposed" to abortion.

Question: Does the campaign trail truly transform a candidate?

Well in the case of Giuliani, I think maybe it did humble. Consider his campaign (mis)fortunes: he lost every single state, his "firewall" FL was no such thing, his campaign ran out of money, and he was forced to withdraw, endorsed McCain, and decided to work for the good of the party. Will it last? That's another question.

In the case of Huckabee, I think he has actually become MORE arrogant (if that's possible). He has gotten A LOT of media attention, with guest appearances on TV almost daily. He's still snide towards Romney, even though Mitt dropped out (consider his comment that he "didn't have to give an oscar performance" if he had to endorse McCain. I don't know about you guys, but thats more than just competition.)
He says he's in the race still to give people a choice...in reality he's just benefitting from a narrowed field (to restate: Romney had way more votes than Huckabee by the time he dropped out, and was nearly tied with McCain in totals).

In Obama's case, I think he's just starting to get arrogant. For awhile he has just glad to be competing with Hillary. Now, with this crazy nation soul fixing stuff...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hey, what do you have against the Met?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by ElfGal

From what I've seen of Hilary, I think that she isn't a Christian and wants to make America communist. Remember her husband's presidency? He resigned just before he got impeached so he would still LOOK GOOD. They were going to get divorced but didn't, so they would still LOOK GOOD. She wouldn't be a good choice. I personally would vote for McCain, because he's a Christian and I agree with a lot of his opinions. One thing I don't like about him is that he's pro-abortion.

ElfGal, you just don't have your facts right.

For example. Clinton was impeached, and he never resigned. Those are two pretty big errors of fact.

As far as people's personal religious points of view (about which neither you nor I actually know anything. That's between a person and God, right?)

But, let's just consider the evidence.
First...what is the proper thing for married Christians to do? A) remain married (whom God has put together, let no man put asunder) or B) get a divorce. ? You're suggesting that the Clintons are worse Christians because they're not divorced? Well, a look at prominent Republican politicians would certainly lend itself to that conclusion, I suppose. McCain, for example, was still married and living with his first wife when he picked up the (considerably younger, and rich) wife he has now. Not his first affair, by all reports, and not his last, if the recent brouhaha about his relationship with lobbyist Vicky Iseman has any credit. (She could hardly look more like the wife, except younger, I'm just sayin'.)

Here's the skinny on Cindy, btw. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3295472.ece

Oh yeah. It all says leadership to me. And it's impossible to believe that Hillary fell for a guy in 1975, and stayed with him, despite his flaws, because a) she loves him, and b) she thinks it's the right thing to do.

[hectorberlioz]

Hey Sis, don't move...your post count is 1776

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey Sis, don't move...your post count is 1776

A great year in Delaware history, but only one of many.

[brownjenkins]

Many of the greatest leaders, movers and thinkers in the history of the world have had somewhat, to extremely, questionable personal lives as far as their loves go. On the filpside, many of the worst and most dangerous were very culturally moral in their personal lives.

It really should be a non-factor, other than cases that actually break laws. All human beings are hypocrits when it comes to love. The question is whether you admit it or not.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All human beings are hypocrits when it comes to love. The question is whether you admit it or not.

Right, dude. When your long-suffering wife emerges from the kitchen with your birthday cake, be sure to point that out to her before blowing out the candles.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Right, dude. When your long-suffering wife emerges from the kitchen with your birthday cake, be sure to point that out to her before blowing out the candles.

I would never do that, because I love her dearly!

Which only proves my point.

I also highly doubt I'll be getting a cake, but we'll see.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nostalgia for GHW Bush? What is the world coming to?

George W. could make anybody look good.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

George W. could make anybody look good.

Yeah, you're right about that. He was a beauty salon owner back in Texas. It was his specialty

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, he's actually the one responsible for Beckham. Just another footballer, till he checked out GW's place.

[hectorberlioz]

Grey Wolf's Place?