<p>Ok folks - here's a place where we can talk about anything political w/out hijacking some other thread!</p>
<p>Since this is an election year, and speculation has already begun for 2008, I figured I'd go ahead and get the ball rolling. This is a great forum for info sharing about candidates, issues, etc. that are relevant to us (Surely if we can talk about weddings, movies & chocolate, then politics is ok, right?). </p>
<p>Alas, what some of y'all have been saying may be true - perhaps John McCain isn't electable. After reading the following article on Free Republic, I'm beginning to have my doubts. Maybe he'll get it together by 2008, but who knows??</p>
<p>"The Conservative Case Against John McCain"</p>
<p>I think "time for a woman in there anyway" was said tongue-in-cheek. I don't usually comment on the political stuff here but we had a woman candidate win in one of our primaries yesterday. She basically said the same thing during the campaign. My questions whenever I hear this comment are "Why is it time for a woman? What does that really mean? And why should I vote for you because you're a woman?" I don't think that just by being a woman anyone will be better for a job than any man. I also think that any woman who wants a job because she thinks she will be more effective than a man is exactly the woman who should not be elected.</p>
<p>bz, This is a nice idea and I'm sure we'll have lots of different points of view. However, it's nearly impossible to commit to any candidate right now as they have not yet really explained their platforms yet. And many of the presidential candidates have not announced yet. I only hope there will be no knee-jerk reactions to candidates and that the voters will take the time to listen and think. I know, I know - fat chance.</p>
<p>I would not vote for McCain (common Alma Mater) or Giuliani (personal friend of the family) in a primary. Sorry, but neither of them is even remotely conservative enough.</p>
<p>Unless something bizarre were to occur, I would KILL to see Condi run in 2008. She'd get my vote!</p>
<p>I'd love to see the left try to attack a successful, single, black woman as a legacy, whipped, racist, mysoginist! LOL!</p>
<p>"We're ready for a woman anyway", eh? Does that mean you'd vote for Cindy Sheehan if that moonbat managed to get on the ballot?</p>
<p>Sorry, I don't vote gender when I vote. I vote intellect.</p>
<p>mot - I agree w/ everything you've said. The fact that "it's nearly impossible to commit to a candidate right now" is precisely why I think it isn't too early to start a discussion - while everyone is still open-minded (and not too emotional!).</p>
<p>I'm looking forward to hearing the various points of view - from all contingents represented here. Where else can you get so many different views (contrary to what some have asserted!) expressed with such intellect? :)</p>
<p>Well, my knee-jerk reaction to Mitt Romney was that he was a politician's kid and probably too lightweight for the presidential nod. However, I saw him on a c-span interview this weekend and have to admit that I was extremely impressed. He has a blue chip resume and has been a Republican governor in Massachusetts. There must be something really great about him if his message could resonate here.</p>
<p>I think Condelezza Rice (sp?) has a screw loose! Stanford faculty are glad she's gone. Did you hear the interview when she said "...and my husband, I mean the President..."
This woman has NEVER
been married and she accidently referred to President Bush as her husband. I think she is very STRANGE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Sorry, I don't vote gender when I vote. I vote intellect."
zaphod</p>
<p>That's strange, I thought you supported George W...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do, and that's the way I voted.</p>
<p>If you think differently, I wonder what you feel about the fact that the frat-boy misnonpronunciating idiot cleaned Kerry's (did you know he fought in Vietnam?) clock.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nine Iraq war veterans are running for Congress in 2006 and they share some common characteristics:</p>
<p>-All nine are Democrats</p>
<p>-All of them are against the war in Iraq
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, one of them is GOP and supports the war.</p>
<p>As for "where are all the other vets?", they're either a) still over there fighting the war they support, or b) getting on with their lives in something more important than politics.</p>
<p>I just find it hysterical that the Democrats (the party that loathes all things military) is suddenly so gung-ho about military people.</p>
<p>Oh, that's right. THESE military people (all 8 of them, mind you, out of a force of hundreds of thousands) provide the dems with a route back to power (which is all they care about anyway). I'm sure the one vet going GOP will be called a Bush hack, a baby-killer, a warmonger, and all the other things the left normally calls folks in uniform when they actually say what they believe.</p>
<p>I am a Republican but I am a huge Bill Richardson fan. I think it goes to the fact that I have known him since he was first elected to Congress and have worked with him on a number of issues.</p>
<p>He is extremely bright. He's the only candidate out there who has a broad skill and experience mix having served as an elected Representative in Congress, as a diplomat (Ambassador to the UN), a Cabinet Official (Secretary of Energy), and a chief executive of a State (Governor of New Mexico).</p>
<p>Moreover, he passes the critical test for the Dems -- which state(s) can he win that John Kerry didn't -- New Mexico and Colorado for sure, and perhaps Florida.</p>
<p>The Dems are a lock to carry all the states that Kerry won. The only other D out there who might meet that criteria is Bayh, but he doesn't have the same credentials as Richardson.</p>
<p>The only Republican that matches up favorably with Richardson is Tom Ridge. You swap military experience for diplomatic experience and you have a wash. I like Ridge a lot, but as a pro choice Republican, he's doomed.</p>
<p>Bill Richardson is entirely too "moderate" to win the primary. The kook-lunatic-fringe, blinking-red-light-on-the-tip-of-the-left-wing Democrat base will never allow it.</p>
<p>Look what they did to Leiberman, for Pete's sake!</p>
<p>Both sides have plenty of money. It just how they spend it that counts.</p>
<p>Also, the guy who gets elected is the guy who the average Joe would want to have over and drink a beer and barbeque with. It not always how I voted, but I have to tell you, I would have rather had a beer with Ronald Reagan than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale; I would have rather had a beer with GHW Bush than Michael Dukakis; I would have rather gone drinking with Bill Clinton than GHW Bush or Bob Dole (but I voted for both of those guys); and I would rather hang out with W than either Gore or Kerry. I think for the most part people just don't want to vote for somebody they percieve as having a large piece of lumber stuck up their backside.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure that the winning party has won [excepting Reagan] in the past twenty-five years as it is that the losing party has simply lost the election. Running Dole, for example, simply because he "deserved" the nomination was a huge mistake. The same might be said of Gore. </p>
<p>Republicans have not won because of money as much as Democrats have lost because of lifeless candidates that could not articulate a clear position. See Kerry. Until the Democrats eschew the liberal extremes, they will continue to lose elections. There are simply more Republican apostles [See the Republican quoted as saying she would not vote for Jesus if he ran as a Democrat] than there are Democrat believers. [Who probably wouldn't vote for Jesus simply becuase they would be concerned about separation of church/state issues.]</p>
<p>One might say that it is easier to throw some red meat to the true believers; just say, for example, that you are against abortion, big government, deficits, etc. and Republicans will vote for you regardless of whether you actually follow through on your stated beliefs. See Bush. </p>
<p>Democrats, however, demand such obsequiousness from candidates that any "true beliefs" a candidate may have gets buried in attempts to satisfy everybody. See Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, etc.</p>
<p>The President simply reflects the population as a whole. If you don't like what you see in the President, just look in the mirror. At the end of the day, LFWB probably has it right: People vote for whom they like and would like to be around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Republicans have not won because of money as much as Democrats have lost because of lifeless candidates that could not articulate a clear position.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>The Democrats have lost precisely BECAUSE their candidates HAVE articulated their ideas. The problem is that the ideas all suck. Remember that Clinton won because he ran as a moderate. Now the organization Clinton was a part of (Democratic LLeadership Conference) is reviled by the rank and file for being too conservative.</p>
<p>As for money, spare me. The Dems have all of Hollywood, plenty of corporate suckers, and billionairs like George Soros running around with more money than God. What they lack is ideas. People vote for ideas.</p>
<p>Otherwise, Bill and LFWB are pretty much spot-on.</p>
<p>If you think there is parity between Republicans and Democrats in terms of fundraising/campaign financing, youre sadly mistaken and totally misinformed.</p>
<p>"While Republicans maintain a sizable overall financial edge for this election cycle, the Democrats' across-the-board fundraising surge is providing an unexpected boost to Kerry and Democratic Senate and House candidates just as the election season intensifies .</p>
<p> Republicans still enjoy an overall advantage in both money raised and money available to spend now through the Nov. 2 election because of their fundraising success last year. In 2003, Bush and the RNC and congressional committees raised a total of $340 million, nearly three times the $117 million raised by Kerry and the three Democratic committees. At the end of May, the Bush campaign and the GOP committees had a cash-on-hand advantage of $74 million over the Democrats .</p>
<h1>But scholars and the parties' strategists agree that the GOP's historical financial edge is eroding in the post-campaign-finance-reform era -- at least temporarily "</h1>
<p>Unfortunately, many Americans voted for Bush/GOP candidates because Republican TV commercials appeared with greater frequency and they mailed more campaign flyers. </p>