The Official US President Election Thread

[brownjenkins]

i'm hoping he will do the stuff that may help... security, intelligence and maybe even a bit to promote democracy and self-determination among the people of the middle east

i'm hoping he won't do things like the iraqi invasion, which was unnessecary and just fanned the flames of hatred and try to work within a more peaceful framework... followed up by a rebuilding program more designed around making profits than helping the iraqis

i think the latter is the most important part... as we found out with timothy mcvey a fews years back, it only takes one or two disgruntled people to kill a lot of innocents... and in the end no security system can stop that... but happy people, economically and socially are much more likely to do what they can to maintain that happiness

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Kerry has basically moderate views, and his foreign policies and foreign policy advisors would be much more in touch then Bush's. For example, Richard Holbrooke (no isolationist, he) would have an important position, possibly Secretary of State.

Also
Originally posted by Janny
Blair will go in 2005, the Tories will be rubbish (Michael Hoqward is BAD) but Blair won't make it. If Kerry gets in then the face of international politics changes dramatically towards anti-war. Blair will be isolated and lose (more likely than if Bush wins).

_________________________________
What about the Liberal Democrats. from what's seen Sunday nights on C-Span the leader seems moderate and competent (if a bit dull). Would Blair's and Tories problems give them an opening? After all, they haven't held power since the 1920s, I believe.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
What about the Liberal Democrats. from what's seen Sunday nights on C-Span the leader seems moderate and competent (if a bit dull). Would Blair's and Tories problems give them an opening? After all, they haven't held power since the 1920s, I believe.

They've never held power since they were formed in the 1970s (the Liberals were a different party - confusing I know ). They're not anywhere near forming a government yet - though they could gain from the other parties' problems, it wouldn't be to a great enough extent. They only have about 50 or so seats in Parliament and a governing party needs over 300 at the very least.

Janny - don't you think Michael Howard would be as keen on the war on terror as Blair is? It's surely just a question of whether he could build the personal relationship with Bush that Blair has, or with Kerry if he gets elected - the policy won't change. (The Lib Dems, on the other hand, are far less pro-American than the Tories and opposed the war in Iraq.)

[Janny]

Well ok... I'm not really up on US politics.
Hmm... Charles Kennedy in power... that's a funny thought. Cardigans for all!!! And what would it do to Scottish devolution to have a Scottish English MP?
[Edit: PM opps!]

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Janny
And what would it do to Scottish devolution to have a Scottish English MP?
[Edit: PM opps!]

Same effect as if we had Gordon Brown as PM, which is much more likely...

[Janny]

What?! The man who 'stole Ollie Letwin's thunder'?
The man who can't pronoun the word 'decade'? That is one annoying voice... so, US politics anyone?

[Mercutio]

What annoys me is Kerry's platform on the Iraq War----

Essentially, "vote for me because I'm not him [bush]"

When asked for specifics as to what he would do in Iraq, he either avoids the questions or says something like "specifics come later."

HE HAS NO IDEAS AS TO WHAT TO DO NOW!

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originall posted by Mercutio
HE HAS NO IDEAS AS TO WHAT TO DO NOW!
___________________________
As C.S. Lewis was known to comment when someone made too sweeping an assertion at an Inklings meeting:

"Distinguo!"
--------------------------------------------
From the official Kerry website (of course giving the candidate's slant).
http://johnkerry.com/
"To move forward, Kerry elaborated on his strategy to win the peace with three points today: one, make Iraq part of NATO’s global mission; two, authorize a High Commissioner for governance and reconstruction; and three, launch a massive effort to build an Iraqi security force."
---------------------------------------------
One can argue that more needs to be said, it doesn't go far enough, it's too idealistic and optimistic, whatever, but not that he has no views or ideas on Iraq.

Also, if you have a view that the current administration has botched handling Iraq since "mission accomplished" one could argure that a change for change's sake could be in order (especially given the comparative experiences with war and its concomitant crises and crises management of Kerry and Bush-
oh, and Rummy too). Rumsfeld's buddies and some sychophantic reporters like to call him "Rummy."

[Insidious Rex]

Whats interesting is the phenomenon that seems to be developing of people losing more and more confidence in bush but its not helping kerry at all. bushs numbers keep falling but kerrys barley move up at all. perhaps this means we will see less turn out at the poles as a huge number of people are discouraged by both choices. who knows...

[GrayMouser]

Okay, what's your bet on the Veepstakes?

I would have said Edwards right after the primaries, but now with Iraq dominating the issue I think he'll go with someone with more foreign policy gravitas- Clark, anyone?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Okay, what's your bet on the Veepstakes?

I would have said Edwards right after the primaries, but now with Iraq dominating the issue I think he'll go with someone with more foreign policy gravitas- Clark, anyone?

Tough to say...

And it's a rare occurence, but I wonder if President Bush will change and run with someone else besides Cheney. There have been a lot of accusations and shady-looking things there...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Good observation about the GOP by Val. I would guess Colin Powell has lost any interst in politics he had, if any, since his disagreements with the majority of the White House people, but there are more attractive candidates then Cheney (how about Bill Frist, Senate maj. leader)?

For Dems, an interesting choice would be Gov. Richardson, could help get Hispanic votes and Arizona, New Mex., Nevada, and Colo.
And Clark would also help with veterans in those states + states like Arkansas and West Virginia.

[Beruthiel's cat]

There has certainly been a lot of negative press about Cheney in the last few months, but I doubt that Bush will replace him with a new running-mate, although that would certainly be an interesting development.

I do think that Kerry should choose a VP candidate with foreign policy knowledge. Clark would certainly fit the bill nicely, and I'd like to see it. But there are a number of others that would also be effective. My dad lives in New Mexico and he doesn't like Gov. Richardson much, but Dad's a Republican and watches Fox News too much...(not so his little girl...I'll take PBS and Worldnews, thanks...)

[Insidious Rex]

I seriously doubt theres any chance whatsoever of Bush dumping Chaney because hes a political liability. That would be completely and totally out of character for Bush and hes all about solidarity with those surrounding him. Otherwise we would probably have seen Rummsfield told to take a hike by now.

[The Gaffer]

It's always struck me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rove, etc are the collective organ grinder and Bush is just the monkey, so he won't ditch any of them. Who's going to answer his questions for him when he gets cross-examined?

Maybe Kerry is just keeping his head down in the hope that Bush will self-destruct.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It's always struck me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rove, etc are the collective organ grinder and Bush is just the monkey, so he won't ditch any of them. Who's going to answer his questions for him when he gets cross-examined?

Perhaps Edgar Bergen or Paul Winchell will be available...

(In case you are unfamiliar with these names, they are famous ventriloquists here in the US)

I know. I'm a very bad person...

[Insidious Rex]

Well seeing as how excrutiatingly boring this place has become I thought Id resurrect this thread (ah! political thread!) and ask people what they thought about the wife aspect of the presidential election. does it really make a difference at all? is it overblown? do people prefer a presidential wife who is her own person or a cookie baker who toes the traditional first wife role to the tee like Laura Bush has? Are people (especially republicans) as put off by the Heinz dame as they were (are) about Hillary because she is so pushy and into doing her own thing or do they find her kinda refreshing in how she handles herself?

[Lizra]

I don't pay much attention to the wife. She is what she is. If the prez likes her.... My mom loves to make fun of the various women though. I don't get too riled up over elections, but I make sure to vote! I did watch Bill Clinton speak the other night. Gosh, I sure enjoyed it when he was president. He looked good, and it was positive and upbeat hearing him talk again. Something about him makes me feel a little happier...unusual with politicians!

[Mercutio]

Heinz is going to speak at the N'tl Dem. Conv. in a few minutes. Where I am only the public television station (WHYY channel 12) is covering it. The other channels just do regular programming.

Also at the Convention, the Dems previously stated they wouldn't turn it into a Bush-bashing occasion. But all the speeches I've heard have at the minimum heavily hinted about Bush (and they have mentioned him specifically, such as "fear of the next four years under George Bush").

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

do people prefer a presidential wife who is her own person or a cookie baker who toes the traditional first wife role to the tee like Laura Bush has?

And if a woman bakes cookies, does that mean she can't be her own person!?!?!?!