[Despondent]

They're propping him up for the fall. I may not vote this year.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

Religious moderates are often called liberal. I don't think it's insulting or undermining to be considered liberal, or to suggest that moderate politicians are liberal, or more liberal than conservative.

But hyperbole aside, despondent, why is McCain not worthy of the Republican title, or why is he more deserving of a Liberal title?

Perhaps there has been a change in the Republican zeitgeist. You’ve lend credence to the idea McCain is misinforming the red states on his policy. But I know this isn’t the case, I’ve seen it with my own eyes and ears, the criticism McCain has endured as a quasi-republican has been well addressed by the media, yet flocks of voters have cast their McCain ballot.

If they're being misinformed than perhaps they're just incredibly stupid by ignoring all the condemnation this man has received. He earned Pat Robertsons scorn. That there should be reason enough for half the evangelicals to vote for Huckabee, a man that loves Jesus openly.

My point being, he’s not shying away from the accusations. McCain is committing these treasonous political moves in public and has received open criticism for it by his fellow party members, yet with all this into account, he’s beating the proverbial red state pin up boy, Mike Huckabee.

[Simperin' Fool]

and a moderate is a liberal.

Actually, moderates are both liberal and conservative: they want both social regulations and economic ones, total control over peoples' lives. Or, at least, that's what Uncle Eric says.

I just don't understand why people/media outlets that started out hating the man for being so "liberal" are suddenly such staunch supporters of him. How do they get away with that?

Because the media has an alarming influence over public opinion.

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 22 February 2008 - 08:13 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

But this instance seems like the opposite. Like the media wanted people to not vote for him because he's such a sucky liberal but then they voted for him anyway so now they're gonna go along with what the voting public thinks... Whatever...

[mireaux7]

This nation is in shambles. You know it, I know it, everyone knows this.

Voters dont want promises unfulfilled, they want dedicated commitments and most of all positive resolution to the tramatic issues that are currently plaguing this nation.

I think we have some great candidates up for grabs, but heres my take on them each:

On McCain:

The man's characteristics & resume are pretty much benchmark for what every great president should be. He served in the senate for over 20 yrs, served in Nam, and was even a POW for over 5 yrs. The only thing I see is that some are viewing him as being slightly senile and fear that age may further take its toll on him as his tenure in the Oval Office progesses.

Many are seeing McCain as a good thing coming just a little too late. Others feel he isnt completely mentally abreast of a lot of the real issues at hand such as the fear of recession, healthcare, energy issues, etc. He seems to be from the old school and has his mind fixed on the Iraq War.

On Obama:

Young and vibrant, his persona somewhat distantly reminiscent of JFK's. Full of charisma and energy, he seems very level-headed in the direction he wants to guide this nation in should he assume commander in chief. I honestly for a while felt he was the prime candidate for the role,but recent events have shifted my judgment of him.

With his 12-streak victory, he slowly lost focus of his campaign and became somewhat of a braggart. A never before noticed arrogance began to surface in his character, and his attacks became more brutal towards other candidates. Instead of the verbal attacks, he should have maintained his poise and simply remained positive on his campaign goals for his plans on "changing america".

He has a lot of great ideas, and his wave of victory seems to be riding on speaking about what a lot of voters want to hear,."ear candy", if you will. Thats great and all, but the guy is only 46 yrs old and many feel he lacks the necessary experience to take such steps. It would be like me saying I have a fabulous idea to build a time machine, and I talk about this time machine, and then someone begins to question if i have sufficient educational credentials to begin such a task, and I say no, then I have lost all validity.

On Clinton:

A Familiar face (or two or three) with messages of hope and determination to repair this country. Many are still left with the sour taste of hubby Bill's last term in office, but voters are willing to forgive a mild sex scandal for a candidate that they know has a great chance of solving many of America's issues.

Although Hillary is not officially permitted to use it as one of her campaigning tools, its a pretty obvious fact that a vote for Hillary places Bill back in office also, as a sort of "dual presidency" in the White House. A legal loophole that allows Bill to serve a third term in office as the mere shadow of his wife, and who else is better fitted to run this country than someone who is married to a former president of EIGHT YEARS in office?

Of course, If Clinton gets elected it would continue the natural flow of the already 20 year old "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" presidency role switcheroo that many have worn tired of. Perhaps this was the "change" that Obama has been harping about ever so loudly during his campaigning?

Epilogue:

I feel each candidate brings forth a lot to the table, each with various views and statements about how their efforts will better this nation moreso than their opponents will. Regardless of who takes the throne, its my deepest hope that voters do concentrate their focus towards the problems this country faces and ultimately decides who is best suited to tackle the issues at hand.

This post has been edited by mireaux7: 06 March 2008 - 08:12 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Clinton now seems as intent on spoiling democratic chances as some democrats think Nader is. Clinton is behind by a large number of delegates and unless she wins by 10-20 point margins in all the remaining contests which judging by the previous thirty or so contests there is no chance of that occuring. All she's going to do is make the race more fractious and costly while delaying Obama's nomination and giving McCain time to snipe.

[Spoon Poetic]

Yep. I understand that she still has a tiny little chance (because of all the delegates that can choose on her own, and she has won a good portion of delegates since they don't do winner take all) but she's still just hurting the democratic race in general.

She was on Saturday Night Live! So weird. Saw the clip on youtube. I'm sorry, but I do not approve of presidential candidates doing such things. The occasional joke or fun thing, fine - but it sometimes really seems like campaigns are getting less and less serious as time goes on. Vote for the funny guy! Vote for the one that appears on the most silly talk shows like Daily Show and Tyra Show! Vote for the one that dances a jig for Ellen DeGeneres! Gah.

[Simperin' Fool]

If that's the kind of thing they're going for now, they should just have porn stars run for office.

"Oh man, I can't decide who to vote for: McCaine has such sensuous legs, but Clinton does that thing with her feet..."

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 07 March 2008 - 03:33 PM

[Despondent]

I can't believe J m doesn't want the socialist would-be dictatress as his next excellency. Not like one gets to pick their dictator you know, that's just the trade-off for an advanced republic.

[Spoon Poetic]

If that's the kind of thing they're going for now, they should just have porn stars run for office.

"Oh man, I can't decide who to vote for: McCaine has such sensuous legs, but Clinton does that thing with her feet..."

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
I hate you for that

[Cobnat]

Clinton seems intent on thinking she has the presidency rite because she fucked (?) the man who was president last time and stayed with him long enough to receive his retirement pay.

I dont care who becomes president anymore. Ron Paul is out so I know USAmerica (and thus, the world) is screwed. I can only hope the successor of Bush II is merciful on the children.

[Slade]

Oh, silly, silly Despondent, so open to right-wing propaganda. Clinton is business as usual at best, which has never been remotely socialist in this country.

I also like how Mireaux can say that Obama isn't old enough and/or doesn't have enough experience to be president when he's been a lawyer and senator for years. The current Bush did nothing his entire life but be put in positions of power in companies by his daddy and then run every one of them into the ground, if I recall. Reagan sold guns to Afghanistan to pay for CIA operatives to overthrow South American governments, and he was an actor, not a statesman, but people still revere him. I don't think Lincoln finished high school, though that needs to be looked at in the context of the early 1800s. I'm not enthused by Obama, but this country has had far too many presidents that could/should have lacked credibility for that line to really work.

We need someone with the knowhow and the elbow grease to lead us to a new land, but I don't think anyone is really going to stop the bloated, overpowerful federal government, the rampant overt corruption, and the steady march toward complete corporatism in this country.

[Dr Lecter]

the steady march toward complete corporatism in this country

Erm, yeah... do I even need to make this point?

[J m HofMarN]

I can't believe J m doesn't want the socialist would-be dictatress as his next excellency.

I dont want Clinton as the next candidate because

1: If she wins she'll do just enough to pacify the masses without changing anything
2: If she doesnt win, as is likely, we get 4-8 more years of Bush's cronies.

Also, she's no socialist, and this is coming from a socialist. I like right wing propaganda as much as the next guy, but I don't prefer to be lumped into the same camp as Hilary. Obama gets most of his money from the workers, making him more beholden to our goals, and he also intends to parlay with Cuban leaders and create affordable universal healthcare, but even that doesnt mean he's a socialist. If there were ever an American leader who had a chance at creating a dictatorship of the proletariat it was FDR, a man who had my full support.

And interestingly enough who was also not qualified to be president due to infirmity.

And just how young is this guy? I wouldnt be opposed to a 24 year old president, but Obama is nearly twice that age. The guy is forty. I don't plan to live to be that old. The founding fathers said 35 was the youngest you could be for president. I think that's a bit too old, but hey that's just me. But it isn't about his age, it's about the fact that he hasnt been in washington for enough of his 40 years to be corrupted by the capitol culture. I find that to be an advantage.

[Spoon Poetic]

You don't plan to live to 40? Are you offing yourself before then or something???


Also: what does everyone think of this new mess that's popped up with Obama's racist church?