Since offspring is sick of drama posts and apparently isn’t interested in the compelling HD discussion currently going on, I’m taking him up on the better of his two thread ideas.

Who’s yer horse in the primaries? Anyone actually paying attention? You should be. This is as wide open as the field has ever been, and the Republicans might be headed for a brokered convention for the first time in 80 years.

Some of you know I’ve actually been on the ground for the last few months in the thick of all this. Got any questions? Fire away!

Ground rules for the thread… back your shit up, or pack it and go home. Whiny bitches will be mercilessly tossed from this thread and into purgatory with Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter.

Ron Paul is who I’m voting for.

I will admit I don’t know as much as I should about any of the candidates but I am starting to. Whats the deal with Ron Paul? In November I was up in PEnsacola and there were hand written signs for Ron Paul taped on light poles out in the boonies. Thats something i’ve never seen before.

It’s bottom-up grassroots, Jason. Paul started as a fringe candidate that ran for the Libertarian Party nomination a few years back, so he entered primarily to push the issues. His message (ironically the same one he’s had for 30 years) caught on and a volunteer in Florida organized two separate fundraisers to get him to the forefront. Paul remains a long shot for the nomination, but his campaign has picked up considerable steam… fueled by enthusiastic supporters amongst a crowd of largely boring and crappy candidates.

I should probably disclose at this point that it’s Paul’s payroll I’m on.

Dennis Kucinich..... However since he will never make it to the general election… Obama.

As a guy from the bottom of the world, I’m actually really interested in the race and my opinion is that it will be the most important race and presidential election yet. What’s even more interesting is what is the most preferred - the first female president or the first black president…

From what I’ve read and understood and cogitated on; I’ve come to the conclusion that this world needs a female US president. The US has a ridiculous figure of indebtedness and the media coverage has really done nothing to convince me that another male in office would repair the damage. I’m also weary of my judgment as there’s the inevitable reference to Mr Clinton and, his little indiscretion aside, his amazing ability to engage people. When he came to NZ, he knew exactly what to say (sure, it was probably written for him) and knew what strings to pull - his reference to Sir Edmund Hilary won him more than a few fans here. It’s hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton would be the apple that fell far from the tree.

I’m all for having a black president but I just haven’t been convinced that Obama has anything substantial to offer. My first impression is that he seems nothing more than a puppet - forgive my incidental references - but he seems to be counting on the fact that he’s african-american.

On the republican side, there really doesn’t seem to be a contender with the same credentials as either Obama or Clinton. I could be wrong or I could just be ignorant given my centre-left stand.

One question I do have is how long does the primary elections go for until the presidential campaign begins? Given we’re a small country, we don’t have such a rigourous (or seemingly rigourous) process - it’s just vote for the Prime Minister and how the govt. gets made up with our now inevitable coalitions.

not sure about Obama counting on the fact that he’s african-american… i actually attended a rally for him last year (a friend asked me to go, I didn’t know who this guy was) and he didn’t mention his race. He was actually very good, but being that it was my first political rally I assume that every candidate comes off pretty at those.

As a libertarian I’ve never been interested in any of the major presidential candidates for quite a while, until Ron Paul came up and picked up more support than I’ve ever seen ever, simply by articulating his views. His consistent positions on all the issues by applying a basic constitutionalist philosophy has impressed me to no end. The only major Republican who never drank the neo con Kool Aid on the Iraq War and Middle East foreign policy. He’s the only candidate whose statements send me to the library to research more on things like U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century. A man of intellect rather than emotional manipulation, though he draws strong emotionally charged support.

Admittedly, my support has seriously dampened since this whole newsletter debacle. I am stunned by the lack of ownership he’s taken of the situation. Not just for disavowing personal authorship: I believe him. But he’s protecting someone, probably close to him, probably Rockwell, while claiming ignorance. He’s either lying to protect someone who shouldn’t be protected, or literally does not know what’s happening right under his nose. Either option may disqualify him as fit for president, and thus disqualifies him from my vote. I’m not just voting for getting the issues out, I’m voting for a candidate who could actually lead. If he can’t handle this right, he won’t look too good when the real heat gets turned on.

Still, Ron Paul’s views are refreshing to the ears. His interview with the Google executive is the best overview of what he’s all about.

raven848 - 20 January 2008 04:34 AM

not sure about Obama counting on the fact that he’s african-american… i actually attended a rally for him last year (a friend asked me to go, I didn’t know who this guy was) and he didn’t mention his race. He was actually very good, but being that it was my first political rally I assume that every candidate comes off pretty at those.

it may just be the media slant on it as well - I know our main publication made the most of Hilary’s ‘Martin Luther King’ reference and Obama’s subsequent reaction. Similarly, today they made a specific reference to the fact that Obama lost Nevada with a majority of the black votes..

Either way, it’s a lot more interesting than our elecion year.

Dennis Kucinich, FTW.

And failing that, Ron Paul, who is like Dennis Kucinich except he’s pro-life.  Nobody’s perfect…

Failing both of those, John Edwards, or whoever he is on the ticket with as a VP candidate.

Mad Dawg - 21 January 2008 07:15 PM

...except he’s pro-life.  Nobody’s perfect…

To hell with your insinuation.

vin9 - 22 January 2008 10:11 AM

Mad Dawg - 21 January 2008 07:15 PM

...except he’s pro-life.  Nobody’s perfect…

To hell with your insinuation.

Hey… I’m pro-life for me, but pro-choice for everyone else. 

Hey… I’m pro-life for me, but pro-choice for everyone else. 

mmm........why? 

Ron Paul does indeed sound like the most fascinating of all the candidates.

The leading candidates otherwise in both parties seem to simply be tossing in your face the ‘popular opinion of the day’. Obama sounds interesting except i really don’t know how far back his history goes?. 

People that think we need change so badly that they like to say “WE NEED A NON-WHITE MALE PRESIDENT” are caught up in a mirage of simple solutions to their perceived problems. Hell, i myself have caught myself thinking that there were simple exotic solutions to much more complex problems. Every candidate is a person. Every candidate has their influences?

I’m kind of a tard on this whole topic to be honest, i vaguely follow what’s going on. Voting means that you are accepting the consequences of your favored candidate not winning the crown. Let’s just hope that whoever succeeds has a damn nice smile and a tight fucking budgeting plan (doubt it).

I just seem to have this urgent feeling that money is the biggest issue right now, and for very good reason. The dollar’s value is just evaporating. Does anyone feel that there are any bigger issues at the moment? What do you feel are the most important issues and who do you think addresses them with the most realistic plan?

As a legal immigrant in the solidly Democratic state of Chicago, er, Illinois, dunno if what I say means much.  But I’m excited anyway.  We’ve had some rather uninspired choices over the past couple decades, Clinton included, even though I’m aligned with his world view.

Not saying that Clinton redux or Edwards are particularly inspiring, but the whole wide-open extravaganza is inspiring.  The young’uns don’t realize how long we’ve, er, you’ve been waiting to vote for someone rather than against someone.

I still hate the political process.  I still think a McCain - Obama or Clinton matchup would be an interesting one.  I think the debates would have potential.  But then all the advisers and spin doctors get busy grinding it all down to throwaways.

Blah blah blah I bore me.

I’m voting for Robocop.

Obama and Paul are interestingly similar in that they are both touting something bigger than themselves, and are genuine about that. I’m not a Democrat but I can’t help but be impressed by Obama in so many ways.

The problem with Obama, however, is to nail down exactly what he is actually touting that is bigger than himself. A unity that transcends the old school partisan politics? Sounds vague. We can work together, etc. and etc. I’m left scratching my head often, what is he talking about exactly? Nevertheless, as a statesman and representative, the “face” and “new attitude” of America, Obama may be our best bet.

Paul, however, is much more crystal clear on what trends he wants to reverse and on what basis. Increased fidelity to the Constitution will by definition reverse the negative trends of federalism.

The Boston Globe put out a questionarre to the candidates a couple of months back. Their answers to the questions related to civil liberties and the rule of law are particularly enlightening:

The use of signing statements

The power to detain U.S. citizens

Torture

The Geneva Conventions

Habeas Corpus

Notice with the exception of Paul, the Republicans come out looking a lot weaker on liberty and law. “Declining to answer” on issues that important doesn’t look good.

I would vote for Edwards, but I don’t seriously think he will be the democratic pick… Clinton to me seems to be as bad as staying with the same old candidates that the republican party will probably also pick as their primary candidate.

Obama kinds of ends up being the default choice.  But I have to agree with Joe.  He comes across great in debates and interviews, but I really have no clue as to what his “change” is all about.

Unfortunately it ends up being a vote to try and get rid of the same crap that we’ve been dealing with..  The republican party really needs a shake up, and all politicians needs to take a look at some of the shady shit their counterparts, or themselves have been doing.  I’ll probably vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the republican candidate, and I consider myself an independent. 

If a candidate would step forward and vow 100% to remove the corruption and influence of big business from DC I would vote for them regardless of what their other views were.  But none of them are doing that, and honestly, it will never happen.  The stock market, traders, CEO’s, etc.. are ruining this country and getting fat off of it.  For instance, banks were making a killing doing high risk, sub-prime, rising rate mortgages to people that didn’t have the credit worthiness to even get a loan.  Why the hell should the government now bail those banks out, and still let the CEO’s of those banks make more money in 1 year than most people make in their entire life?  Anybody with any common sense saw that coming.  If, as a consumer, you were to stupid to think about what your loan payment would be in 5-10 ten years, shame on you.

I tend to assume that a Democrat or Republican, if they could not have a member of their particular party in power, would still prefer the opposite party to be in power rather than a third party. Also that they like to fuel this feud to distract us from other options. It works damn well, a lot of people feel that they can resolve their problems by siding with or against one of those two parties when both are the problem.

I guess that wasn’t 100% on topic but i had to put it out there haha
::eats cookies 0

Joe...really like your views, and echo many of them.  I do like Obama...and it sucks living in the South where so many people refuse to even give Obama a fighting chance.  The War’s over...but many people (my own father included) refuse to even consider the notion of LISTENING to his platform for the simple fact that he’s black.  That said, I’m still in it for Ron Paul.  I normally abhor politicians, but I find Ron very refreshing.  It’s like one of my co-workers said a few months ago...he’s the “People’s Candidate.” Given the chance, he’ll be a leader that people respect, which is something that happens too rarely in today’s governing forces. 

I’d rather shoot myself in the fucking face than vote for Hillary, and I’d never vote for Edwards because his wife is a big-mouth pretentious bitch (so she had cancer...she’s still a bitch and who I believe cost him the election last go-round) and I can’t stand her.

End political views.

Delphinia - 23 January 2008 08:48 PM

It’s like one of my co-workers said a few months ago...he’s the “People’s Candidate.”

I find this thread as a complete outsider quite interesting. One thing is for sure, Ron Paul who is advocated by many of you has hardly been mentioned internationally at all.

Please disregard this comment and go on as usual, but I cannot keep my mouth shut and wish that in the end the person who is eventually elected the next presidet is actually the one who has received the majority of the votes. No Florida style vote counting or anything resembling it this time around, mmmmkay?

BioTracer - 23 January 2008 09:49 PM

Please disregard this comment and go on as usual, but I cannot keep my mouth shut and wish that in the end the person who is eventually elected the next presidet is actually the one who has received the majority of the votes. No Florida style vote counting or anything resembling it this time around, mmmmkay?

I feel like I’ve given this speech before, but here goes…

Though it may seem strange to everybody else in the world and, indeed, even to many of our own citizens, the electoral college exists so that the views of people living in states like Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Vermont will actually matter.  Otherwise the policies and direction of this nation would be dictated by California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

While Al Gore may have won the majority of voters in 2000, he only won one of the states listed in my first sentence (Vermont, which would’ve gone blue even if he had personally and publicly insulted the residents of that state without remorse).  Any two of the others (and Alaska was EXTREMELY close) would have given him the win.  It just goes to show you that, as a politician, you can not neglect the little guy while on the campaign trail.

I’m no Bush supporter (have now voted against him 4 times, twice for governor of Texas and twice for president of the US), but the electoral college actually has a purpose.  The 2000 election proved that, for better or worse, it is still serving that purpose extremely well.

As for Al Gore, he didn’t even win his home state (Tennessee).  If he had, he would’ve easily taken the presidency… 277-260.

Obama and Ron Paul are rather interesting.  Hillary can jump off a bridge.  As cool as I think it would be to finally have a female president, she sure as hell doesn’t have my vote.

In point of fact they stopped counting military absentees in California because a victor had already been declared. The grand consensus amongst political insiders both Republican and Democrat is that had all the votes been counted, Bush would have won the popular vote too. That’s why the Beltway went back to business as usual and it took the media and bloggers 4 years to quit whining. There are plenty of substantial and compelling arguments for and against the electoral college, but the results of the 2000 elections is not one of them.

And now for the rest of the thread—I’m sitting in an airport waiting to catch a flight to Anchorage, AK for Super Tuesday, and have a few minutes to delve in.

raven848 -

not sure about Obama counting on the fact that he’s african-american… i actually attended a rally for him last year (a friend asked me to go, I didn’t know who this guy was) and he didn’t mention his race. He was actually very good, but being that it was my first political rally I assume that every candidate comes off pretty at those.

joesnuff -

Obama and Paul are interestingly similar in that they are both touting something bigger than themselves, and are genuine about that. I’m not a Democrat but I can’t help but be impressed by Obama in so many ways.

The problem with Obama, however, is to nail down exactly what he is actually touting that is bigger than himself. A unity that transcends the old school partisan politics? Sounds vague. We can work together, etc. and etc. I’m left scratching my head often, what is he talking about exactly? Nevertheless, as a statesman and representative, the “face” and “new attitude” of America, Obama may be our best bet.

Some candidates are actually quite awful on their feet, notably Tom Tancredo (R), Fred Thompson (R), Duncan Hunter (R), Joe Biden (D) and Chris Dodd (D). Obama is a masterful orator, perhaps only bested by Alan Keyes. The problem with Obama, however, is his inspiring speeches actually contain very little substance and tend to leave his audiences lacking. The kids in Iowa City lapped it up, but the seasoned voters in New Hampshire didn’t buy it for a minute. You can douse a whole can of whipped cream and feel full, but it’s not actually a meal. That’s the big difference that Hillary Clinton (and most recently John Edwards) have attacked him on. Obama has a lot of explaining to do about his agendas and mandates, seeing as he abstained from voting on a staggering 136 bills in the Illinois State Senate, many of those hot-button issues regarding gun control and healthcare. You can’t bill yourself as an agent of change if your record reflects unwavering allegiance to the status quo—just like Mitt Romney can’t suddenly become a champion of conservatism when his record up till 2005 indicates pro-choice, pro-gay rights Massachusetts liberalism.

joesnuff -

Admittedly, my support has seriously dampened since this whole newsletter debacle. I am stunned by the lack of ownership he’s taken of the situation. Not just for disavowing personal authorship: I believe him. But he’s protecting someone, probably close to him, probably Rockwell, while claiming ignorance.

There may be more to those letters regarding who actually wrote them, but the bottom line is that they’re *not* representative of Ron Paul’s views. One needs to look no further than Nelson Linder, President of the NAACP, to rebuke statements that Ron Paul is a racist.

As for who actually wrote them, we may never know.

Mad Dawg -

Dennis Kucinich, FTW.

Dennis needs to stop pretending to run for President and start paying attention to all the votes in Congress he’s missing.

Mad Dawg -

Hey… I’m pro-life for me, but pro-choice for everyone else.

It’s a bit difficult to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity when we’re killing them by the millions.

xs -

I just seem to have this urgent feeling that money is the biggest issue right now, and for very good reason. The dollar’s value is just evaporating. Does anyone feel that there are any bigger issues at the moment? What do you feel are the most important issues and who do you think addresses them with the most realistic plan?

It should be, but it’s not. The closest plan we have to something like this would be the Fair Tax, which currently has over 100 cosponsors in Congress and is endorsed by a handful of the Presidential candidates. It would start with eliminating the IRS and moving us back to a national retail sales tax, which retains all the status quo budget spending but drops the cost of compliance across the board. I can get into this a little more in a separate post if you’d like.

Continued…

VK1 -

I still think a McCain - Obama or Clinton matchup would be an interesting one.  I think the debates would have potential.  But then all the advisers and spin doctors get busy grinding it all down to throwaways.

It wouldn’t be interesting in the slightest actually, because both Obama and Clinton would slaughter the living shit out of McCain. His viability remains highly suspect at this point, because both of the states he won (New Hampshire and South Carolina) held open primaries that allowed Democrats and Independents to participate. Other states (Florida in particular) require you to be a registered Republican over a month before the actual primary takes place, and that isolates the bloc of voters to strictly Republican faithful. McCain hasn’t been very effective in courting this group—Romney beat him amongst Republican voters in both NH and SC, and handily won Michigan and Nevada.

The real bottom line is, it doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate… because a Democrat will win the Presidency this year, and I believe that will be Hillary. I’ve been telling people this for eight years (since she was running for Senate in New York), and some of you might even remember me saying it four years ago during the 2004 election discussions we had.

Mohaughn -

If a candidate would step forward and vow 100% to remove the corruption and influence of big business from DC I would vote for them regardless of what their other views were.

That would require the abolition of the IRS and a return to the Gold Standard. Three Presidents tried to do this: Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan. And they all have something else in common.

Delphinia -

I’d rather shoot myself in the fucking face than vote for Hillary, and I’d never vote for Edwards because his wife is a big-mouth pretentious bitch (so she had cancer...she’s still a bitch and who I believe cost him the election last go-round) and I can’t stand her.

Are you sure it was Edwards’ wife and not Kerry’s? Teresa Heinz Kerry was certifiably nuts and had a few incidents with the media courtesy of not keeping her mouth shut.

I’m rooting for Hillary because she’s actually more conservative than most of the Republicans running. I wouldn’t go so far as to say in public that I’d vote for her, but if it came down to Giuliani or Romney… I’d definitely be thinking about it. For all of Bill Clinton’s irritating vices (not including his penchant for McDonalds and White House quickies), he was surprisingly populist and his budget quite moderate compared to Bush’s spending spree. I also think Hillary has far more resolve than anyone gives her credit for. Politics aside—I have much respect and admiration for her. If a woman is going to finally do it, it should be Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin (the current governor of Alaska).