yes, agreed. For the sake of getting rid of the far right nuts, McCain would actually be much better than Clinton. McCain will help strengthen and embolden the centrists and liberal-leaning members of the Republican party, as well as traditional fiscal/libertarian conservatives, and help weaken the monopoly of the NeoCons and other far-right nuts who have recently taken control of the party.
Mitt Romney quits
- Thread starter vince
- Start date
yes, agreed. For the sake of getting rid of the far right nuts, McCain would actually be much better than Clinton. McCain will help strengthen and embolden the centrists and liberal-leaning members of the Republican party, as well as traditional fiscal/libertarian conservatives, and help weaken the monopoly of the NeoCons and other far-right nuts who have recently taken control of the party.
Take that sentiment and add a little more cynicism and a little more realism and I often feel the same way.
Part of the reason I favor the Democrats lately is that I think the Republicans have had power for too long. I favored Bush over Gore in 2000 in large part for the same reason. (sorry, I was wrong) I think Jefferson may have been right when he said the tree of liberty had to be watered every 20 years by the blood of pariots (to remain free there should be an armed overthrow of the existing government every generation, in other words)... but that's not going to happen here. We're too complacent. So the closest we get is voting one of two different parties into power every 4 or 8 years.
I too like McCain. Pilot, POW, and not a yes man for Bush. I admire his integrity. I do fear he may to old to complete two terms in a very stressful office. It is too bad he didn't get the nod eight years ago.
I really want the Republicans to go down big for giving power back to the Bush/Carlyle cartel.
I really want the Republicans to go down big for giving power back to the Bush/Carlyle cartel.
depends on what you mean by "ultra-conservative." The fundies tend to favor Huckabee. The Hannophants tend to favor Romney.
I don't particularly like either of them. If I was forced to pick one I'd go with Huckabee. It would have been a harder decision up until Romney's final speech, which I think revealed his true character, true agenda, and true level of douche-baggery.
True, but I think the real impact of the damage during a presidency is felt during the second term. We weren't bitching about the price of gas, the rise in unemployment, or worried about a slump in the housing market four years ago.
ClaireTalon
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Posts
- 1,917
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 183
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Puget Sound
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
My sentiments exactly, that's why I will vote for him, provided that he'll be nominated. I was pretty sure of not voting this year until I had heard about him entering the race officially, the other options just scared me off. A mixture of candidates I either couldn't agree with, or seemed to be too unexperienced or unappealing to me. In my eyes, he has everything I would look for: Experience, connections and independence from the neo-conservative mainstream, not to mention his aviatory and veteran past.
PS: Who else thinks Mitt Romney looks like someone out of Dynasty?
PS: Who else thinks Mitt Romney looks like someone out of Dynasty?
Reagan assumed office for the first time 17 days before his 70th birthday. If McCain wins the 2008 election he will be 72 when he is sworn in in 2009, making him the oldest first-term US president in history, though still younger than Reagan was at the start of his second term.
fwiw, I think he looks pretty damn good for his age. I also think he looks way younger than Reagan did circa '80. Aside from the hair.
kalipygian
Expert Member
NIC, I hope you're right about McCain. Perhaps I judge him too harshly because of his recent pandering to the right-wing. I still think a Democratic president would be better, even Clinton, but that may be because I've never leaned conservative on any issue, so McCain will just never do it for me.
Agreed.
I agree that no humiliating defeat is forthcoming, as much as I think they deserve it, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. If McCain loses but the race is close, are Republicans going to think "Oh, we should have pandered more to the far right" or might they think, "Oh, we were really close with McCain; we need to move a little more towards the center." I think the only way a humiliating defeat work would is if public opinion truly shifted--I'm talking massive cultural change--towards something like eco-feminist, neo-pagan, tree-hugging, Green Party-type values. Then the Republican party might re-align itself to better represent classical liberalism.
Unless...do you think losing to Clinton (even if it's a close race) would be humiliating enough?
You and jeffery_stelesvyle almost have me persuaded. I think the key point here is that he'd have to win, and then be an effective president, without pandering to the far-right. There's doubt about whether or not he can do this. I saw a bunch of pundits on this morning's news (not that I give a crap what the pundits think) talking about the possibility of him choosing Romney as a running mate. Although many of them thought Romney was an unlikely choice, many thought he would be a good choice, and they all agreed that McCain needed to choose someone like Romney (i.e., Christian and strongly conservative) as his running mate.
In any case, in spite of their talk, as I mentioned before, I don't think the far-right nights are going to leave the political forum willingly. They'll support McCain in the end, and then do whatever they can to make sure that he relies on their continued support, or at least to make it look like he needs their support. It remains to be seen whether or not he does.
Oh, I'm so torn on this. I'm one of those oddballs who likes Hillary and I always have. I've never understood people's dislike of her, other than the aforementioned character assassination, plus no small amount of sexism. I think she comes across in debates as intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable. With regards to Obama, as much as I wish I could like him, I'm not impressed. (I'm one of those people who doesn't think he's ready yet, although he may be in another decade or so.) I think his success so far lies not in the fact that he's ready to be president, but that America is ready for him to be president. But I worry that if he wins, he'll be in over his head, he won't be effective, and after his term is up, everything will swing back to the right. So my worries about an Obama presidency are similar to your worries about a Clinton presidency, although for different reasons.
I agree with you about how hard it would be for Hillary to win, but my fantasy is that she manages to win anyway and then, with the support of a Democratic Congress, goes on to be a very effective president (I think she's perfectly capable of it), undoing much of the damage of the Bush-Cheney years, thereby proving everyone wrong about her.
But I can't deny how much she's hated, and frankly I'm surprised she's gotten this far. So my fantasy is probably just a fantasy. Unfortunately.
Agreed.
I agree that no humiliating defeat is forthcoming, as much as I think they deserve it, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. If McCain loses but the race is close, are Republicans going to think "Oh, we should have pandered more to the far right" or might they think, "Oh, we were really close with McCain; we need to move a little more towards the center." I think the only way a humiliating defeat work would is if public opinion truly shifted--I'm talking massive cultural change--towards something like eco-feminist, neo-pagan, tree-hugging, Green Party-type values. Then the Republican party might re-align itself to better represent classical liberalism.
Unless...do you think losing to Clinton (even if it's a close race) would be humiliating enough?
You and jeffery_stelesvyle almost have me persuaded. I think the key point here is that he'd have to win, and then be an effective president, without pandering to the far-right. There's doubt about whether or not he can do this. I saw a bunch of pundits on this morning's news (not that I give a crap what the pundits think) talking about the possibility of him choosing Romney as a running mate. Although many of them thought Romney was an unlikely choice, many thought he would be a good choice, and they all agreed that McCain needed to choose someone like Romney (i.e., Christian and strongly conservative) as his running mate.
In any case, in spite of their talk, as I mentioned before, I don't think the far-right nights are going to leave the political forum willingly. They'll support McCain in the end, and then do whatever they can to make sure that he relies on their continued support, or at least to make it look like he needs their support. It remains to be seen whether or not he does.
Oh, I'm so torn on this. I'm one of those oddballs who likes Hillary and I always have. I've never understood people's dislike of her, other than the aforementioned character assassination, plus no small amount of sexism. I think she comes across in debates as intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable. With regards to Obama, as much as I wish I could like him, I'm not impressed. (I'm one of those people who doesn't think he's ready yet, although he may be in another decade or so.) I think his success so far lies not in the fact that he's ready to be president, but that America is ready for him to be president. But I worry that if he wins, he'll be in over his head, he won't be effective, and after his term is up, everything will swing back to the right. So my worries about an Obama presidency are similar to your worries about a Clinton presidency, although for different reasons.
I agree with you about how hard it would be for Hillary to win, but my fantasy is that she manages to win anyway and then, with the support of a Democratic Congress, goes on to be a very effective president (I think she's perfectly capable of it), undoing much of the damage of the Bush-Cheney years, thereby proving everyone wrong about her.
But I can't deny how much she's hated, and frankly I'm surprised she's gotten this far. So my fantasy is probably just a fantasy. Unfortunately.
After comparing the pics I agree, but before that I agreed with SteveHD and thought McCain was the older-looking of the two. It's amazing what impact hair color has on our perception of age. Do I remember correctly that Reagan dyed his hair to look younger?
That's a really good pic of McCain. He hasn't looked that good during this campaign.
He was accused of that but repeatedly denied it. In his second term, some gray did become visible. After he was out, it gradually turned to salt-n-pepper.
Similar threads
