Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Are you really trying to say that by starting this thread (one that would have obviously been made anyway) that you have created a monster? Its almost 30 pages long, started over a year ago, and that's the only comment you have contributed to the thread in the last few pages. You started a thread that would obviously have more than a few arguments and retarded posts. Youre not Frankenstein or whatever.

[SuperJerk 0]

I guess you musta just missed the very next sentence. He has said, more than once, that he feels it could end up being a military venture, and he will support that. Hes taken the pussyhawks side before, his leg to stand on is limp.

 

But thats cool, you have a fetish for vanilladudes that dont mind a few wars here/there/everywhere.

No, its just that the line I bolded made everything else you had to say about Bayh irrelevant.

 

And I'm not buying this idea that because Pres. Bush was wrong to send troops to Iraq, its wrong for anyone to be for military action ever again.

 

By the way, unlike a certain frontrunner, Bayh has actually said Iraq was a mistake. So...who do you prefer? Bayh or Hillary? Because once people realize how young and inexperienced Obama is, those are pretty much going to be your choices.

[snuffbox 0]

I would be embarassed for anyone that would vote to authorize a war that wasn't absolutely essential (Like American Civil War, Pearl Harbor, people-that-actually-attack-us necessity) under the current leadership. Again.

[snuffbox 0]

I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Bayh. I would never support anyone that remains open to the pressure of the Dick Cheney brigade.

[SuperJerk 0]

I can't agree with you on that, but I respect the fact that you are planning to vote your conscience.

 

The only wasted vote is the one you don't cast.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

Edwards seems to me to be in the position that JFK would have been in had he won the VP nomination in 1956 instead of Estes Kefauver. Along for the ride with Adlai (who shouldnt be compared to John Kerry), Kennedy would have lost and found himself in a pretty tough politcal spot for awhile. Now, Edwards has to try to make up the ground he lost. He has been keeping very busy with his personal work and with Kemp as well as keeping visible in the public eye. He certainly has Evan Bayh eclipsed in terms of charisma. He has distanced himself, and apologized, for his Iraq vote...and, unlike Sen Bayh, doesnt appear to be bending his ear for the bomb-Iran idea floating from the Cheney office.

 

I can't vote for him then. I want someone who will at least consider war with a dangerous country like Iran if it comes to it.

 

2008 is going to suck. The only Democrat I like is Obama but he isn't too experienced.

[snuffbox 0]

The idea of going to war with Iran if it is truly necessary is not the problem...the problem is the gullibility to the neocon idea that war is ALWAYS the answer, despite the facts/history/necessity. There have been and always will be occasions when war is the best and only option. Iraq was not and is not one of them. Our leaders must learn to respect the valor of our troops and not think of them as toy dolls. If it comes down to war being essential to stop an Iranian threat, then so be it. We can only pray that those that lead such a hypothetical effort are for more knowledgeable on military matters than Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Libby/Cheney/Bush.

 

And, Jerk, that above photo makes little sense as I did not suggest that Edwards is 'like' JFK...it is his position as a losing VP candidate that is like what Kennedy would have had to deal with had he ran with Adlai in '56.

[SuperJerk 0]

And, Jerk, that above photo makes little sense as I did not suggest that Edwards is 'like' JFK...it is his position as a losing VP candidate that is like what Kennedy would have had to deal with had he ran with Adlai in '56.

 

Do you realize that JFK and John Edwards are so different that you had to make up a alternate reality just to have some way to say that they're alike?

[snuffbox 0]

They are not alike. Is this bit of history and it's similarity to Edwards situation on the national stage something that is just too far out there to grasp? Am I on Mars or something when I suggest that JFK luckily avoiding being on the losing ticket can relate to Edwards possibly struggling to get past not being so lucky as to avoid that loser stigma? Is it now taboo to even find parallels to things that JFK didn't do? Is he now that much of a sacred cow?

[SuperJerk 0]

John Edwards is no Jack Kennedy.

 

Hence the picture.

[snuffbox 0]

That's nice. And correct. And irrelevant.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're the one who made the JFK comparison, not me.

[snuffbox 0]

This is just too much for me. I show a historical parallel (the same could be said of many other national candidates), reiterate that I am ONLY speaking of that particular parallel and NOT a comparison of the two as people/politicians/candidates, and you STILL dont comprehend. Unreal.

[SuperJerk 0]

No, I got it. I just really, really like dissing John Edwards.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

The idea of going to war with Iran if it is truly necessary is not the problem...the problem is the gullibility to the neocon idea that war is ALWAYS the answer, despite the facts/history/necessity. There have been and always will be occasions when war is the best and only option. Iraq was not and is not one of them. Our leaders must learn to respect the valor of our troops and not think of them as toy dolls. If it comes down to war being essential to stop an Iranian threat, then so be it. We can only pray that those that lead such a hypothetical effort are for more knowledgeable on military matters than Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Libby/Cheney/Bush.

 

I think war with Iran is maybe unavoidable (a few years in the future). They keep getting crazier and when they get nukes they're going to be even more dangerous. I bet it's just a question of whether we go to war with them ourselves first or whether we go to war with them because they attack Israel or Israel finally gets fed up with Iran funding proxy wars between Israel and the Palestinians / Lebanese / Syrians.

 

Wait, that's a separate argument.

 

I guess I think John Edwards sucks too. I didn't like him as part of the party ticket in 04.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I just think Bayh represents my views better and has more, more relevant experience that would help him run the country. The fact that I think he's more electable is just one of many reasons I will support his candidacy.

 

You're probably right that Vanilla Bayh stands a better chance of being elected...but what about him "represents your views better" than Feingold? Just curious.

 

You never answered this Jerk. I'm just curious.

[snuffbox 0]

And what makes SuperBayh so much better than John Edwards?

[SuperJerk 0]

I already answered that.

 

How is he that much worse than Evan Bayh?

Evan Bayh is actually qualified to be president. He has both governed a large state and gotten bills passed through the Congress.

 

John Edwards just kind of waundered into the Senate one day, made some pretty speeches, and started running for president.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

That's what concerns me about Obama. He's a bit the same. I like him the best of potential Democrat candidates but it would maybe be better if he ran in 2012 instead. I don't think he'll win the nomination so he can still run again then (or in 2016 if the Democrats win the White House in 08).

[Guest Felonies!]

I don't really know what Barack Obama stands for. His whole campaign just seemed to be about being a non-threatening black person that white-guilt-ridden Chicagolanders could pat themselves on the backs for supporting, kind of like a more competent Carol Moseley-Braun. (He was also running against Alan Keyes. Oof.)Much like Edwards, he's a good speaker and is probably one of People's Sexiest Politicians In America or something dopey and vapid like that. (Edwards must certainly be right up there. Swoon.) Maybe he'll actually develop a serious platform beyond just spouting catch-all platitudes, but who knows. I just wish it wasn't so flagrantly obvious that all his national success will have been predicated on being half-black, but such is life.

[snuffbox 0]

He had a brilliant hour and a half speech on the Iraq War, Terrorism, and Foreign Affairs that aired on C-Span last night. But, of course, that would require actually looking into Obama's stances on topics and not just following the 'hes just a nice black fellow' line.

 

And, I guess Jerk just cant give any specifics on why Bayh is better than either Feingold or Edwards.

[gWIL 0]

Stressing fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government, Bayh's tenure as governor was highlighted by eight years without raising taxes, the largest single tax cut and largest budget surplus in state history, "welfare-to-work"-type social programs, increasing annual school funding, high academic standards and new college opportunities, the creation of over 350,000 new jobs, the strengthening of law enforcement and improved environmental quality. He signed the 21st Century Scholars Act in 1992, legislation which states that every child in Indiana who is eligible for the free lunch program in a public school, graduates from high school and signs a pledge not to experiment with illegal drugs is entitled to a full college scholarship to a public university of his or her choice. By the end of his second term, Bayh had an approval rating of nearly 80 percent .

 

In the 2004 election he received more votes in Indiana than President Bush, a feat unheard of by a Democrat in a state as staunchly Republican as Indiana.

 

Edwards was a one-term senator who spent more time campaigning then he did actually getting stuff done.

 

Feingold is a good guy but he's not running.

[snuffbox 0]

I will grant Bayh my liking of his small govt stances...and, while nation building is probably the greatest example of a Big Govt fan there is, he doesn't seem to be in favor of that despite his original Iraq vote.

 

Speaking of which, nation-building is now the 'reason' for our presence in Iraq, does anyone recall that being part of the reason for the original invasion?

[snuffbox 0]

Bill Frist has decided not to run.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The thing that's annoyed me about Obama is that on the very night he was elected to the Senate, people were already talking about him running for President, basically because he's young and black. It's like, can't we let the guy actually accomplish something first before talking about making him leader of our whole country?

[snuffbox 0]

I guess I dont remember hearing that in '04, though I'm sure the speculation was there...just as it was when Bush Jr was first elected Governor, and JFK was first elected Senator, and Reagan was first elected governor, and....

 

Good thing people didn't act like this in 1860. Lincoln hadn't even won the Senate seat. He went from losing a Senate election to the Presidency. He was also an ugly man. The Czechs and Invaders of the world wouldn't have been able to handle that.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bill Frist has decided not to run.

Sadly, running the Senate into the ground as the majority leader wasn't listed as an official reason for his decision.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/frist.2008/index.html

 

I guess I dont remember hearing that in '04, though I'm sure the speculation was there...just as it was when Bush Jr was first elected Governor, and JFK was first elected Senator, and Reagan was first elected governor, and....

 

Good thing people didn't act like this in 1860. Lincoln hadn't even won the Senate seat. He went from losing a Senate election to the Presidency. He was also an ugly man. The Czechs and Invaders of the world wouldn't have been able to handle that.

 

People back then at least had the Lincoln/Douglas debates to go by. I consider debates to be useful tools. You get a real feel for how a guy's mind works, and how he handles pressure. Even if his answers aren't the most eloquent, the qualities you show in a debate say a lot about how you'll handle the job.

 

We all know what debates did for JFK and Reagan (the now famous "I AM PAYING FOR THIS MICROPHONE, MR. GREEN." line). I knew Clinton had the election sewn up as soon as I saw him debate Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas (yes, I was a political nerd even in high school). By contrast, Al Gore let himself get slapped around by Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. I knew when I saw the 1996 Kerry/Weld debate that Kerry would have a real shot at becoming president some day.

 

Then look at the 2004 debate between Cheney and Edwards.

[Guest Felonies!]

Good thing people didn't act like this in 1860. Lincoln hadn't even won the Senate seat. He went from losing a Senate election to the Presidency. He was also an ugly man. The Czechs and Invaders of the world wouldn't have been able to handle that.

Hey, fuck you. Where did I say I value physical qualities in candidates?

[snuffbox 0]

"Nice black fellow" is all Barack Obama has going for him...you said that in the face of all the information readily available about him, as it is apparently too dificult for some people (yourself included) to actually read about or watch speeches by a potential candidate.

 

The election was weeks ago Czech, the worlds still spinning proper. Are your walls spinning too?

[Guest Felonies!]

I said that Obama was elected two years ago as somewhat of a lightweight running against a confirmed whackjob. I didn't say "I would only vote for handsome men," which is what you implied.