|
Post by babyblue on Dec 31, 2006 12:53:00 GMT -5
Once again I am curious to know what your thoughts are on who will be running for President in the US?
Marty
|
|
|
Post by bluesron on Dec 31, 2006 13:12:17 GMT -5
John Edwards for the Dems, John McCain for the Repubs
No Hilary or Obama on the ticket for the Dems, Sam Brownback (R Kansas) or Mike Huckabee (outgoing Gov of Arkansas) on the ticket with McCain.
Ron
|
|
|
Post by egoodstein on Dec 31, 2006 13:37:57 GMT -5
I always hate to predict as always many curve balls to be thrown & I'm usually wrong . Right now I think the Dems will go w. Hilary & some southerner on the ticket-- maybe Edwards again tho most likely a governor. GOP looks like McCain now but hard to say-- unsure of running mate though Ron's choices seem logical. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 31, 2006 15:12:20 GMT -5
Our governor, Bill Richardson, is planning to run. Outside of NM, though, I don't know if he has enough recognition. He has a good reputation in that he handled North Korea foreign relations under Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by dawnstar on Dec 31, 2006 16:24:22 GMT -5
Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. I'd flip a coin but I'd need one with two tails... Ben Once again I am curious to know what your thoughts are on who will be running for President in the US? Marty
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Dec 31, 2006 21:44:34 GMT -5
Our governor, Bill Richardson, is planning to run. Outside of NM, though, I don't know if he has enough recognition. He has a good reputation in that he handled North Korea foreign relations under Clinton. I agree that Richardson might have a promising future in store. Time will only tell. Marty
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 31, 2006 23:53:45 GMT -5
Right now, I think John Edwards is the man for the Democrats, though the first primaries aren't for another fourteen months or so. If he can cut away at what I believe to be the facade that is McCain's "independence" from the Bush administration and their positions on Iraq, he will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008 (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 2, 2007 10:40:54 GMT -5
After finally seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" I've decided I really want Al Gore to run again.
|
|
|
Post by bluesron on Jan 2, 2007 17:21:04 GMT -5
After finally seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" I've decided I really want Al Gore to run again. So do the Republicans. Ron(bluesron)
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jan 2, 2007 20:32:20 GMT -5
After finally seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" I've decided I really want Al Gore to run again. So do the Republicans. Ron (bluesron) Isn't the biggest problem for the democrats that if they nominate someone from the left as their candidate that he or she won't have a chance to win in any of the southern and bible belt states (and thus can't win the election)? And if they don't nominate a leftie it won't really matter if he wins or not since the republicans will probably nominate someone who's more to the centre than Bush is? In other words, if the democrats run with someone from the left they will lose and if they choose someone from the centre he will be almost the spitting image of the republican candidate? Gaston
|
|
|
Post by egoodstein on Jan 3, 2007 1:29:19 GMT -5
>> In other words, if the democrats run with someone from the left they will lose and if they choose someone from the centre he will be almost the spitting image of the republican candidate?
Gaston[/quote]<<
**My two cents. There's truth in that to an extent. But the South is not the solid 'Dixiecrat' south of the FDR years or the conservative Republican years either-- quite as much. And in some 'blue states' Republicans are fairly competitive by contrast (they seem even to be recovering slightly in CA for example-- though hard to tell & unlikely to change the state assembly anytime soon). Republicans have for the past 30 years or so at least in presidential elections been better overall in getting their base out to vote. In truth, both parties are fairly centrist, with activists mostly on the farish left & farish right in each trying (& often succeeeding) in dominating debate, but not necessarily 'practice.' I think Democrats right now could nominate anyone and win the presidency, however liberal/leftist they are-- but now isn't '08 of course. Republicans now seem to look to nominate some centrist to appeal to a wider range of voter (sort of like the Democrats did with Kerry), & will probably lose unless the war takes a major upturn, or if the Democrats really muff things running Congress. Ed
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 3, 2007 7:27:41 GMT -5
Gaston I sure hope your comments about democrats and moving to the left is wrong! I do think that this country is ready to move slightly more to the left after the Bush Administration. Guess we will find out in less than two years now. Marty >> In other words, if the democrats run with someone from the left they will lose and if they choose someone from the centre he will be almost the spitting image of the republican candidate? Gaston << **My two cents. There's truth in that to an extent. But the South is not the solid 'Dixiecrat' south of the FDR years or the conservative Republican years either-- quite as much. And in some 'blue states' Republicans are fairly competitive by contrast (they seem even to be recovering slightly in CA for example-- though hard to tell & unlikely to change the state assembly anytime soon). Republicans have for the past 30 years or so at least in presidential elections been better overall in getting their base out to vote. In truth, both parties are fairly centrist, with activists mostly on the farish left & farish right in each trying (& often succeeeding) in dominating debate, but not necessarily 'practice.' I think Democrats right now could nominate anyone and win the presidency, however liberal/leftist they are-- but now isn't '08 of course. Republicans now seem to look to nominate some centrist to appeal to a wider range of voter (sort of like the Democrats did with Kerry), & will probably lose unless the war takes a major upturn, or if the Democrats really muff things running Congress. Ed[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 4, 2007 13:38:46 GMT -5
I heard yesterday that polls on the Republican possible candidates show Guiliani as the Repub frontrunner, but that could change following the scandal that kicked in, and there are reports out there that detail that he really did a terrible job with 9/11, aside from the face he put on his administration.
Don't know what affect this will have, but after listening to Democracy Now! yesterday, I'm much less likely to vote for him. Of course, McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 4, 2007 16:02:31 GMT -5
I don't know where you heard this, but I don't believe a word. As a former NYer and one still at heart, I have friends in NY and everyone loves Guiliani. He did a wonderful job in New York and really cleaned up the city. In the 70s and early 80s you were not safe to walk the streets. The crime, drugs, and scum are all gone and walking the streets day or night you feel comletely safe. I only returned from a visit to New York this passed October and cannot wait to go back. Guiliani is the only Republican that can possibly get my vote. Marty I heard yesterday that polls on the Republican possible candidates show Guiliani as the Repub frontrunner, but that could change following the scandal that kicked in, and there are reports out there that detail that he really did a terrible job with 9/11, aside from the face he put on his administration. Don't know what affect this will have, but after listening to Democracy Now! yesterday, I'm much less likely to vote for him. Of course, McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on Jan 4, 2007 19:22:48 GMT -5
Actually I think Bloomberg is doing a better job than Giuliani; the economy is booming, crime is still down, and without the autocratic tendencies and sleazy sex scandals that marred Giuliani's administration
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 4, 2007 19:33:55 GMT -5
IMO Guillani started straightening up NY and Bloomberg is continuing to do a good job of it.
Marty
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 4, 2007 20:05:08 GMT -5
I don't think that sex scandals (which I think Guilliani's has been pretty much forgotten about over the years) has much to do with their ability to govern and knowledge of politics. Same goes for Clinton or anyone else. Marty Actually I think Bloomberg is doing a better job than Giuliani; the economy is booming, crime is still down, and without the autocratic tendencies and sleazy sex scandals that marred Giuliani's administration
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Jan 4, 2007 20:15:56 GMT -5
I don't think that sex scandals has much to do with their ability to govern and knowledge of politics. Same goes for Clinton or anyone else. Marty Gotta agree with you there. Gaston
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on Jan 4, 2007 20:26:14 GMT -5
The Republican base cares about sex scandals; which along with Guiliani's pro-abortion and anti-gun stance will hurt him with the knuckle drag wing of the GOP.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 4, 2007 21:52:03 GMT -5
I also seem to remember Giuliani joining in the fear-mongering when the GOP held its 2004 convention in the Big Apple, warning us that a vote for the Democrats was basically a vote for Saddam Hussein's or Osama Bin-Laden's kind.
In short, I wouldn't vote for that prick if he were the last man on the planet!
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 4, 2007 23:30:27 GMT -5
I don't want to argue, but obviously from California, you did not get to peronally witness how he turned New York City around. It's a free country and we are all entitled to our opinions. Marty I also seem to remember Giuliani joining in the fear-mongering when the GOP held its 2004 convention in the Big Apple, warning us that a vote for the Democrats was basically a vote for Saddam Hussein's or Osama Bin-Laden's kind. In short, I wouldn't vote for that prick if he were the last man on the planet!
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 5, 2007 10:17:47 GMT -5
I don't deny that Giuliani led New York City through probably the most traumatic time in its history with dignity and determination. It would have been an extremely enormous task for anyone in his position, and there's no question he was up to it.
But when he basically joined in the GOP's attacks on the Democrats at that convention, I lost my respect for him. At that point, to me, he became just another political opportunist.
|
|
|
Post by babyblue on Jan 5, 2007 12:23:02 GMT -5
I see your point now! Marty I don't deny that Giuliani led New York City through probably the most traumatic time in its history with dignity and determination. It would have been an extremely enormous task for anyone in his position, and there's no question he was up to it. But when he basically joined in the GOP's attacks on the Democrats at that convention, I lost my respect for him. At that point, to me, he became just another political opportunist.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 5, 2007 14:09:47 GMT -5
I don't know where you heard this, but I don't believe a word. As a former NYer and one still at heart, I have friends in NY and everyone loves Guiliani. He did a wonderful job in New York and really cleaned up the city. In the 70s and early 80s you were not safe to walk the streets. The crime, drugs, and scum are all gone and walking the streets day or night you feel comletely safe. I only returned from a visit to New York this passed October and cannot wait to go back. Guiliani is the only Republican that can possibly get my vote. Marty I heard yesterday that polls on the Republican possible candidates show Guiliani as the Repub frontrunner, but that could change following the scandal that kicked in, and there are reports out there that detail that he really did a terrible job with 9/11, aside from the face he put on his administration. Don't know what affect this will have, but after listening to Democracy Now! yesterday, I'm much less likely to vote for him. Of course, McCain has no chance of getting my vote. Here's the link to a transcript of the program I heard: www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/03/1459244
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 5, 2007 14:11:33 GMT -5
I really recommend reading the link I sent before assuming he did a great job during 9/11.
|
|