'08 elections

[CPL.Luke]

This thread is here to discuss the possible candidates for the 2008 presidential elections (yeah I got sucked intowatching the regular new yesterday and it was all they were talking about).

 

To get the ball roling Rudy Giuliani (mayor of NYC 92-02) has anounced an exploritory comittee to investigate his chances at winning te presidency. Personally I think he would sweep the national elections because o his strong liberal leanings, charisma, hero status, and he's a republican. However if he ran as a republican he would have a difficult time winning the republican base in the primaries because of his liberal leanings (supports stem cell research, Gay rights, the enviroment etc.).

 

From a personal standpoint I'm very much in favor of him for what he did for New York City, when he first came in the crime rate was skyrocketing times square wasn't safe to be in at night, tent cities in some of the major parks. when Giuliani left the crime rate in NYC was and still is the lowest for any city in America, times square is a great place for a date at night, and the tent cities are gone. Granted as these changes were occurring people hated him (for some very bullish tactics).

 

bu the rest of the race also looks interesting, as Mccain is planning on running for president in the republican party, hillary and obama are planning on making a run in the democratic party. And after this term who knows who's going to come out as an independent.

[ParanoiA]

I'm personally more interested in McCain. At a time of war I trust a former POW more than anyone else. But that's just one issue. I really don't know where he stands on things.

 

I didn't know that about Giuliani and his impact on crime reduction. I'm curious about these "bullish tactics". I wonder if these would work across the nation.

 

Hillary needs to stay far away from the white house. A liberal columnist blasted her yesterday about her grip or lack of grip on economics and brought up several more good reasons not to consider her seriously. I would like to find that column myself.

 

I wonder if we'll see any increase in libertarian popularity after a troop withdrawl from Iraq - if we're out of there by then anyway. That's a major part of the libertarian platform that I don't like, but if we're already out of there, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue I wouldn't think.

[Pangloss]

I think as we go farther along you're going to see more attacks on Giuliani's crime record. Not everyone was enamored with "The Tipping Point", as we've seen here in previous discussions, and while I personally think the idea (clear up the subway graffiti; crime rate drops, etc) has a lot of merit, it's a very easy thing to spin in another direction.

 

And it's a double-whammy for Giuliani, because normally a politician might be able to just sit on a crime record like that and not explain anything, but when someone spins away the graffiti angle (DemPundit #482 sez, "We're supposed to believe that Giuliani solved the crime rate by cleaning up a few subway cars?"), the record gets marginalized even though it's a great record regardless of the reasons.

 

So that'll be interesting to watch. Aside from that I'm also keeping an eye out for who comes forward to represent the religious right. One name that keeps popping up is Newt Gingrich, who in a sense actually benefitted from the recent election because by, well, not being in Congress at the time.

[ParanoiA]

So that'll be interesting to watch. Aside from that I'm also keeping an eye out for who comes forward to represent the religious right. One name that keeps popping up is Newt Gingrich, who in a sense actually benefitted from the recent election because by, well, not being in Congress at the time.

 

Newt is a religious dude? I thought he came across more agnostic. I've always liked his sterile, logical thinking and lecture style. That's why I have such a hard time dealing with politicians; they're more emotionally driven than anything else.

[CPL.Luke]

I read a very interesting interview with Newt Gingerich in a magazine (Discover?). I was very impressed with him, particularly his stance on some science issues and his recognition of the importance of the sciences. Apparently when he was booted out of congress he went to places like U of Georgia, and MIT just to talk to professors and study a bit to catch up on the latest happenings in science. I don't think he'd come off as a candidate for the religious right as he supports teaching science in science classrooms, stem cell research, and anything science related.

 

Anouther thing I thought was interesting is his cooperation with hillary Clinton and others, I think its possible that some prominent republicans from 10 years ago may return as democrats in '08 due to the hijacking of the Republican's by the religious right, and the general shift in idealogies to the point where the Rep's are considered the radical incompetent group and the dem's are running on a platform that would have been conservative 10 years ago.

 

I'll try and dig up the interview.

 

 

As for the "bullish tactics" I mentioned, one of them that strikes me as particularly harsh was his cleen-up of a tent city.

 

It wa in one of the parks down in the greenwich village area of the city, he had about 50 cops go down there and kick everybody out one night. Then had the park sealed off for two years for construction.

 

He also has been described as "the best dictator NYC has ever had" he had a habit of ignoring the liberal democrats in the city (keep in mind that city politics are already very liberal and the dem's there could almost qualify as socialists). I think on the national level Giuliani's politics are more in line with the dem's.

[Sisyphus]

There's no way in Hell Giuliani can win a Republican primary. I don't really think he could win any election outside of NYC, for that matter. He's far too, well, mean. Or at least that's how he'll likely be perceived. The traits that make a successful New York politician tend not to translate well elsewhere. You need a strong socially liberal sensibility, but also a caustic and aggressive manner. You kind of have to be a bully. I can't see that playing on the national level.

 

Also, it's quite easy to spin the crime thing. Giuliani was a strong authoritarian in a lot of ways. If he decides to run for anything, you'll be hearing a lot of comparisons to Mussolini, who did, of course make the trains run on time....

[CPL.Luke]

keep in mind that he's a war hero, that will carry over very well to the repulican base. And he also won the election as mayor of NYC because of a return to competency campaign. A similar campagin will wrok very well on the national level. And the brute side of him may carry well with the republican base's concerns over terrorism.

[ParanoiA]

No bully on the national level? After Bush and the republican GOP have been characterized as bullies - making america the grand bully of the world?

 

Naw, I get your point. That's a strange set of attributes though. Liberal, aggressive. Yeah I don't know if that's very sane actually.

 

I'm looking for the candidate that comes along and tells everyone how it is, whether they realize it or not. I'm looking for the guy that tells the american people to quit acting so childish and stupid, grow up and face reality, that sort of thing. Someone who explains why we give tax cuts to the rich, rather than capitalizing off of american stupidity and playing to the emotions of the public. Someone who explains why "protective" tariffs, like the imported sugar tax to protect sugar farmers, drives manufacturing out of the country, costing us jobs AND poor farmers.

 

I'm looking for the guy who lays it down as it is, rather than feeding the sheep what they want to hear. Sometimes, the fix isn't a tax, a law, or government intervention of any kind.

[Pangloss]

Giuliani's problem ultimately is not his temper or criticism of the crime policy. I can sum it up in one phrase from every southerner's favorite movie: "Yankees in Georgia?! Who let them in?!?!" The only way Giuliani carries the south is if he's facing Hillary Clinton.

 

But it's never going to come to that. Remember: The reason the South is so important is not because of the general election, but because of the primary system. Everyone thought John McCain was a shoe-in after New Hampshire (where independents can vote), but South Carolina going to Bush completely destroyed his run.

 

Regarding Newt Gingrich, I've posted this info before, but I don't mind repeating it. He is very good on science and technology, both in understanding it and in supporting logical resolutions. But he also has significant and important connections to the religious right.

 

I first met him at a Science Fiction convention in 1984, where he sat on a panel with Larry Niven and an expert from NASA whom I believe was Owen Gingrich (but I can't say for sure). They talked about space policy and it was fascinating to hear a real politician weigh in on something I was interested in. I'd just acquired the vote the previous year, and lived in his district, and I believe I ended up voting for him four times (at least twice that I can remember for sure -- I moved around a lot).

 

That's the old Newt. The Newt who became Speaker of the House is widely regarded to be a different animal. Since he left Congress he's ressurected that Newt and become a kind of elder statesmen. He teaches and writes, lectures, and of course he's a "Fox News Analyst" (sic).

 

Gingrich carries a huge amount of historical baggage, by the way. It would suck the air right out of the room -- he'd spend all his time explaining various things that came up during his tenure in Congress and never get to talk about issues.

 

But we'll see what happens.

[CPL.Luke]

I'm kinda wondering if he'll get picked up as a vice presidential candidate for someone. As a running mate he'd bring in alot of the religious vote etc. and hi knowledge of the actual workings in science could help him make good legislation in that area.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting point.

[bascule]

Obama!!!

 

He can like... reach out to moderate Republicans... and stuff.

[-Demosthenes-]

Obama!!!

 

He can like... reach out to moderate Republicans... and stuff.

 

I like Obama

[Pangloss]

Why?

[CPL.Luke]

hmm I'm watching obama on c-span righ now, he's giving a speach at the chicago council on global affairs, I'm impressed.

[Pangloss]

Please feel free to expand on why you guys like Obama. His speaking ability is certainly clear and coherent, but I'm curious what it is that people find attractive about him in a political sense.

 

So far as I can see, the main appeal seems to be that he's a black Democrat without significant prior baggage. A manifestation of the bright and happy side of political correctness, where everyone can generally agree.

[CPL.Luke]

well I think its his honesty and speaking ability that sell people on him, IMO thats exactly what this country needs an honest straight talking politician with some vision for the future. and from what I saw last night Obama is that person,

[ecoli]

True, we could use some Charisma and intellegence right about now.

[ParanoiA]

well I think its his honesty and speaking ability that sell people on him, IMO thats exactly what this country needs an honest straight talking politician with some vision for the future. and from what I saw last night Obama is that person,

 

"honest straight talking politician"?? I'm going to ignore the obvious oxymoronic phrase in that statement.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say we get the government we deserve. Everyone likes Obama because of his ability to talk. Honesty and "straight talking" are attributes assigned by the listener, with no proof or lack of proof to determine either way - but he sounds cool.

 

Vision for the future? Who cares? They all have some kind of vision, or have one written for them come speech time. What if he gets a slap in the face with a national tragedy like GWB got with 9/11? I don't care what kind of vision you have, you need to be able to change and adapt to the environment - which may not have squat to do with your vision or put it on the back burner of priorities.

 

What does this dude stand for? Does he have a back bone? Does he actually work for his pay? How often does he show up to vote? How much money has he taken to get his job? What special interest groups have invested in him? There's a dozen more questions with answers that are far more important and revealing that how well he "talks" and how good he is at making people believe he is honest and straight talking.

[CPL.Luke]

I assigned the honest, straight talking and vision aspects from hearing him answer questions yesterday. He not only gave a good seech, but wa more than able to field questions in a thoughtful manner. Keep in mind that this tim he spoke at a conference, not on of the pre-arranged Q&A sessions bush does where everyone in the audience believes that he's the second coming.

 

One of the things I picked up on with him is that he didn't stop at critiscizing the president like most deomcrats do these days, he spoke of actual change, new ideas etc.

 

He also came out with a good albeit somewhat disheartening description of Iraq, the fact that no matter how many soldiers are there we cannot win by force of arms, and we need to look for political solutions there, by going out and talking with the insurgents, we hae some hope of creating a working solution. ignoring them doesn't work(essentially what bush has donefor the past 3 years)

 

the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line will not work in this case.

[Pangloss]

I'd have to disagree with that -- I've seen little in the way of new ideas or more than simple disagreement with the president. He followed the party line very closely and none of what you list there is unique or even particularly promising or even realistic.

 

What I think is happening with Obama is that he has such a broad base of appeal that everyone finds something to like.

 

What's interesting to me is that nobody is talking about Obama's ideological position, which is quite far to the left. He trots out phrases like "we can send a man to the moon but we can't feed everyone here" which are generally a sign of demogoguery and/or incomprehension of technical subjects.

 

But those concerns aside, I find him compelling as well. In fact, just because I'm opposed to soclialization doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider voting for him based on other factors, up to and including my impressions of him as a person.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, so now we're going to talk with them. Of course. That's what the insurgents want - to talk...right? So, Iraq forming their own government with multicultural representation isn't a political solution? The elections they just had wasn't a political solution?

 

It was a political solution alright, but the insurgents don't want a solution of any kind other than 'America go home'. We've invaded their land. Of course they want us to leave. They can't control their countrymen and bring any kind of resemblance to order. All they know about life is death and holy war, so what do you expect from them?

 

It's the same Clinton mentality all over again - which is what brought us Osama Bin Laden. All you need is love. Just talk and work with the illegitimate. Bribe their behavior with money. Whatever you have to do to put off the inevitable for somebody else to have to deal with later, when they're stronger, more organized, more ingrained, more trusted...

[GutZ]

I will miss Bush's speeches.

 

"We got stay the course, and the course we will stay!"

"I heard there were some rumors on the internets"

*pause* *slight head turn* *smile*

 

For me it doesn't really matter who is the next president. They all have equal blam-o-bility.

[CPL.Luke]

but we didn't allow the insurgent groups to participate in the election, so they don't feel the need to honor it.

 

and as much as we hate to admit it the resistance movement in Iraq has the upper hand, and they will always have the upperhand there. We could send half a million troops there and they would still have the upper hand. the fact is that it costs next to nothing for them to have someone walk up to an american soldier and blow themselves up costing the US government hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there is no shortage of people willing to do that in Iraq. The resistance movement in Iraq can keep attacks like that going indefinately, and we cannot maintain an occupation there indefinatly. The cost of keeping 150,000 people there is to much for our economy to bear, and in order to stop the current violence they are talking about sending over 300,000 troops over there.

 

We cannot beat the Iraqi insurgents, because they represent an idea, and that idea is that america is bad and should go home, or that they want to be represented more, and you cannot beat ideas. If we go over there and arrest every insurgent, and every Iraqi involved in the resistance then there would be twice the number the next day.

 

So there is only one option in Iraq, negotiate. That may not be politacally acceptable but it is the only working option in this situation.

 

Keep in mind however that the resistance movement in Iraq is very different from groups like black september, these guys are fighting a war, not commitin random acts of violence in order to intimidate their enemy.

[Pangloss]

but we didn't allow the insurgent groups to participate in the election, so they don't feel the need to honor it.

 

Sure we did. I'm sure every single insurgent had a purple finger. They maybe zealots, but they aren't stupid.

 

Actually it's not "negotiation" that we need at all. They're really not the "negotiating" type, after all. What we need to do is play politics such that we end up working towards similar purposes, or basically cause them to drive themselves out of existence. THAT's how the Great Game is played, when it's played right.

 

To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, negoatiation is for losers, just like military intervention. First place is the fate of the free world. Second place is a set of steak knives.

 

Freedom is for closers.