2008 Election

[vespachick]

Food for thought:
http://www.236.com/blog/w/will_durst/balkanizing_reagan_1_3638.php
January 18, 2008
 Balkanizing Reagan
Will Durst | Bio

Thinning the Republican herd in this year's Presidential Sweepstakes is proving to be harder than 3-D chess with transparent pieces. In their first three primaries, the GOP has mounted three different heads on their electoral wall. And yeah, that means I'm disregarding the great state of Wyoming, for the simple reason they're responsible for Dick Cheney and deserve to be ignored, if not flogged en masse and shipped to China to be coated in a lead-based paint, then towed to sea by the FDA. But the exciting part is if Fred Thompson breaks out of his somnambulant trance and wins South Carolina and Rudy Giuliani reminds enough withered transplanted Floridians of the post-squeegee wonder years up north, the GOP could roll into Minneapolis for their national convention this September with an entire starting basketball team of prospective candidates posing as Ronald Reagan.

Because that, apparently, is the current fashion, parading around as spitting images of the 40th President, with an emphasis on the saliva. The problem is they can't find the whole package in one guy. They've Balkanized the Gipper. The Christian Right is genuflecting towards Mike Huckabee. The charm contingent is sidling up to his Rudyness, while the Screen Actors Guild wing is Clapping For Fred, Mr. Law & Order himself. Reagan Democrats are big fans of John McCain, and the conservative money boys from Wall Street love that Mitt Romney character. Romney went so far as to appropriate Reagan's bulletproof hair, undoubtedly garnering the Secret Service's endorsement due to the added protection his hard candy shell would provide in the unlikely event he adopts a single position long enough to get a bead on. One has to consider Ronald Reagan lucky he's in the ground and doesn't have to watch these poseurs go through their paces or he'd be spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken during a power surge. Not to mention being royally pissed off about being buried alive and all.

Curiously, two names you never hear mentioned in these celebrity look-a-like pageants are "George" and "Bush." The President is studiously being avoided like a broken pallet of eight penny nails in the center lane of the Beltway. It's a vacuum almost big enough to suck an elephant through. They hope. Among the names that do crop up on the campaign trail more often than that of Herbert Walker's son, are Barry Goldwater, John Wayne Gacy and Bjork. And the Prez is returning the favor by ducking out of town whenever possible, leaving the field wide open for whichever of the Dutch wannabees can best assume the mantle of looking presidential. Of course, the impact of that little trick has diminished somewhat due to seven years of exposure to it.

Playing the "Reagan-Good, Bush-Bad" game has become so popular, candidates are clambering over each other like blind lemmings outrunning a burst dam, with their claims to be the ONLY one TRULY capable of bringing CHANGE to Washington. Living in the shadow of the last year of consecutive Republican presidential terms (5 out of the last 7: 7 out of the last 10), and all the Republicans can talk about is...change. You know what, that can't be good. Must be considered a back-handed slap at Dubyah. Unfortunately, it's just a figurative slap and not a real one upside the head with a chain mail glove. Which might be more cathartic of an experience for the nation. And more deserved too.

[bridget]

Hilary would screw up everything in her first month spending money we don't have like a teen girl at a shopping mall and also botching up the Iraq exit.

'kay I'm just gonna be the girl here and point out that this comment is rather sexist. And this is the thing that's pissed me off about this election so far, and I've followed it very closely:

When Huckabee stalled in the polls in South Carolina, he decided to go for broke and bring up the whole confederate flag insanity of yore, saying, "If some outsider tried to tell us what we should do with our flag in Arkansas, we'd tell 'em where to put the pole." In this day and age, a lot of people would see that as code – Huckabee winking at the racists in that state – I'm your guy. But he wraps it a state's rights cloak, and thus maintains plausible deniability, because outright racism is (thank god) not so well received in the mainstream media.

Hating Hilary is so widely accepted that people can have a field day with all manner of color commentary – giving cover to every sexist person who really just wants to say, "I'm not comfortable with a woman as President." You can say the most belittling and dismissive things about women in power and as long as it's about Hilary – you're totally covered.

Now, The DARK, your comment is one of the least strident, least offensive I've read/heard and you may very well have no problem at all with women in power. I'm using your small quip as a jumping off point to a much bigger thing – I know that. All I'm saying is that if you replaced the mall bit with some sort of racial stereotype in a slag on Obama, I think you might have cringed writing it. All Hillary's candidacy is showing me is that sexism is probably this country's last form of acceptable discrimination, and it's so ingrained people don't even realize they feel the way they do about the prospect of a woman President until they try to formulate a criticism of Hilary and come up with an easy girly slag rather than a political position slag.

You might honestly disagree with her withdrawl plan in Iraq - which is, incidentally, very close to Obama's - but based on the first half of your comment, I can't tell if that's the case, or you just think women are too girly to be Commander in Chief.

[the_wizzard]

Hilary would screw up everything in her first month spending money we don't have like a teen girl at a shopping mall and also botching up the Iraq exit.

'kay I'm just gonna be the girl here and point out that this comment is rather sexist. And this is the thing that's pissed me off about this election so far, and I've followed it very closely:

When Huckabee stalled in the polls in South Carolina, he decided to go for broke and bring up the whole confederate flag insanity of yore, saying, "If some outsider tried to tell us what we should do with our flag in Arkansas, we'd tell 'em where to put the pole." In this day and age, a lot of people would see that as code – Huckabee winking at the racists in that state – I'm your guy. But he wraps it a state's rights cloak, and thus maintains plausible deniability, because outright racism is (thank god) not so well received in the mainstream media.

Hating Hilary is so widely accepted that people can have a field day with all manner of color commentary – giving cover to every sexist person who really just wants to say, "I'm not comfortable with a woman as President." You can say the most belittling and dismissive things about women in power and as long as it's about Hilary – you're totally covered.

Now, The DARK, your comment is one of the least strident, least offensive I've read/heard and you may very well have no problem at all with women in power. I'm using your small quip as a jumping off point to a much bigger thing – I know that. All I'm saying is that if you replaced the mall bit with some sort of racial stereotype in a slag on Obama, I think you might have cringed writing it. All Hillary's candidacy is showing me is that sexism is probably this country's last form of acceptable discrimination, and it's so ingrained people don't even realize they feel the way they do about the prospect of a woman President until they try to formulate a criticism of Hilary and come up with an easy girly slag rather than a political position slag.

You might honestly disagree with her withdrawl plan in Iraq - which is, incidentally, very close to Obama's - but based on the first half of your comment, I can't tell if that's the case, or you just think women are too girly to be Commander in Chief.

thank you for saying that!  this is bound to be a contentious election.  but I have a serious problem with people throwing around silly and unfounded generalities about any candidate.  hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.  she has not wholly won my vote, but she does has some experience.  especially in foreign relations.  which, we SHOULD all agree, is one area that has been in sharp decline in the last 7 years...........

oh and one more note....just about every family I know has their budget managed by the matriarch of the family (with much success...thank you very much).

[Angry Ewok]

hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.

Really?

[bridget]

Quote from the wizzard on Today at 4:44am:
hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.


Really?

Well, yeah.

Let's take a look:

Edwards: US Senate '99-'05 (member of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)

Obama: US Senate '05 – present (member of Foreign Relations Committee and Homeland Security Committee)

Clinton: US Senate '01 – present (member of Armed Services Committee)

Romney: Governor of Massachusetts '03-'07
Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas '96-'07
Giuliani: Mayor of NYC '94-'01

McCain: Is a gazillion years old. He has served in foreign countries, been held in foreign countries, he has played a part in every major foreign policy decision since, like, the dawn of time. Nobody beats McCain on experience. He is Mr. Experience.

Say what you will about executive experience – Governors/Mayors have it in spades – but if we're talking foreign policy experience here, you have to be a member of Congress or higher to even be privy to the intelligence briefings that would allow you to have an informed opinion of most foreign policy decisions. And then you have to make those opinions into policy and get your policy reccomendations thru months and months of committee meetings and then you have to vote on them and choose how you make them reality. I would argue no Republican besides McCain has any foreign policy experience at all – has ever had any roll in crafting any sort of foreign policy.

Now, experience does not necessarily equal good judgment. Strom Thurmond had more experience than even McCain and whoa what a jackass. But if the question is, "Does Hillary have more foreign policy experience than most of the other candidates?" Then yeah, she does.

[The DARK]

Obama wins SC primary by a landslide:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOUTH_CAROLINA_PRIMARY?SITE=MOSPL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[red]

These primary things confuse me, what function do they serve (in simplest terms possible)?

[Jon T.]

When we have the presidential election there will be one candidate from each party.  The primaries are to vote for who that one person from each party will be.  I think that is the most simple way of explaining.

[red]

When we have the presidential election there will be one candidate from each party.  The primaries are to vote for who that one person from each party will be.  I think that is the most simple way of explaining.

Okay, that's exactly what I figured.  

[Angry Ewok]

Well, for what it's worth... I think I'm going with Romney.

[Penny Lane]

Quote from the wizzard on Today at 4:44am:
hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.


Really?

Well, yeah.

Let's take a look:

Edwards: US Senate '99-'05 (member of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)

Obama: US Senate '05 – present (member of Foreign Relations Committee and Homeland Security Committee)

Clinton: US Senate '01 – present (member of Armed Services Committee)

Romney: Governor of Massachusetts '03-'07
Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas '96-'07
Giuliani: Mayor of NYC '94-'01

McCain: Is a gazillion years old. He has served in foreign countries, been held in foreign countries, he has played a part in every major foreign policy decision since, like, the dawn of time. Nobody beats McCain on experience. He is Mr. Experience.

Say what you will about executive experience – Governors/Mayors have it in spades – but if we're talking foreign policy experience here, you have to be a member of Congress or higher to even be privy to the intelligence briefings that would allow you to have an informed opinion of most foreign policy decisions. And then you have to make those opinions into policy and get your policy reccomendations thru months and months of committee meetings and then you have to vote on them and choose how you make them reality. I would argue no Republican besides McCain has any foreign policy experience at all – has ever had any roll in crafting any sort of foreign policy.

Now, experience does not necessarily equal good judgment. Strom Thurmond had more experience than even McCain and whoa what a jackass. But if the question is, "Does Hillary have more foreign policy experience than most of the other candidates?" Then yeah, she does.

she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--

i'm a republican but switching sides this year because i'm going to put my own opinions on healthcare/sub prime market fixes aside in order to do what's best for the country--all the pundits are correct in that mccain is more of a democrat than hillary so if she doesn't beat obama this is going to be the most bass-ackwards election ever. they're running on each other's tickets and it's going to cause even more downfall in the country. obama is dynamic and can probably unite better. yeah, the only candidate w/a soul (kucinich-from my home state) of course has no chance of winning.

and yeah, notice how hillary DID campaign in Fl even though she wasn't supposed to? (stemming from the punishment? their votes don't even count? they were not supposed to be down there but look who was) why did no one bring this up?

the only good choice is obama--not that he's that great either.

[mjkoehler]

she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--

That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).

Vote Obama!

[Penny Lane]

she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--

That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).

Vote Obama!

i am hoping that Ann Coulter's support for her over McCain last night on Hannity will throw some votes Obama's way! (nothing like fooling a few of the lefties into voting for Obama!) Nice one.

[mjkoehler]

Yeah, I was wondering what her motivation is there. I'm betting she's hoping that it will push the Right into voting for Mit or Huck.....which scares me. I realy do hope it backfires and does push more into Obama's camp.

[Penny Lane]

Yeah, I was wondering what her motivation is there. I'm betting she's hoping that it will push the Right into voting for Mit or Huck.....which scares me. I realy do hope it backfires and does push more into Obama's camp.

she probably thinks an obama/mccain ticket is more winnable than a hillary/mccain ticket--either way, it was hilarious to watch last night.

[Angry Ewok]

You're missing the point of what she was saying... The way a lot (probably most) of us conservatives and some of the Republicans are thinking, is that if the Republican party nominates McCain, a liberal running as a Republican, then we'd rather vote for a liberal running as a Democrat... Why? Frankly, I'd rather a member of the Democrat party fuck things up than a member of the Republican party. Hopefully, the conservatives would end up being better represented the next time around.

[kyjed48]

she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--

That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).

Vote Obama!

I'm with you!  I've hated Hillary for many years because of her fake persona.  She cannot be trusted.

Help us Obama! You're our only hope!

[The DARK]

At this point, I'm starting to see how important it is that Obama wins this. Much as I like Mccain and Paul, I don't see the stubbornly democratic congress doing anything for them. Again we will have the idiocy that we have right now with a congress and president who won't agree on anything. Obama is right in saying that he is the one that can unite the country. Hillary has done three things that will make me not vote for her. First, she naturally assumes that because she is a woman, that she should be president. I don't see how that works. I don't have a problem with her being a woman, but is that really a good reason to vote for her? We don't want change for the sake of change. Second, she is the one who is attempting to dig up all the dirt on Obama, not vice versa. She has absolutely no justification for accusing Obama of playing dirty for making an occasional bitter comment about her. Third, she won't listen to anyone but the agenda of the Democratic party. She has made this absolutely clear in her speeches. But I seriously doubt that many people are pure Democrats, who actually believe in every single thing the party stands for. Obama, on the other hand, has great respect for some Republicans and agrees with some of their policies. A man like Obama will get things done.

[Angry Ewok]

I don't have a problem with her being a woman, but is that really a good reason to vote for her?

I cringe everytime I hear someone call Hillary Clinton a woman.

We don't want change for the sake of change.

What makes anyone think that Hillary fucking Clinton would be change in the white house?

[pawpaw]

Here's a really insightful breakdown of all the presidential candidates. Everyone should take a look at this, certainly all undecided voters.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html