Sunday, September 09, 2007
Preferences from the top tier
Preferred Winner: Rudy Giuliani. Great things on foreign policy, and his federalist conservatism is a welcome break from Bush's evangelicalism. Only drawback: uncertainty on judges.
Back-up Winner: Fred Thompson. An unambitious people-person with a conservative orientation, Thompson is the Bush '00 of '08. Drawbacks: Vague beliefs, comes across as old.
Please no: Mitt Romney. Mitt agrees with you on the issues. Because he's supported both sides of all of them.
Preferred Winner: Hillary Clinton. If she governs like it was Bill's third term, thins would generally be alright.
Backup Winner: Barack Obama: A post baby-boomer President is attractive as such, as is someone with Barack's biography.
Please no: John Edwards. Can he possibly be serious about anything he says???
Preferred Winner: Republican Party.
At its wingnut extreme, the Republican Party is stupid. The Democratic Party and its extreme, though, is anti-American. I'll take idiotic over treacherous.
Example of an anti-American Democratic Congressman/Senator? We all know we can find oodles of stupid Republican Congressmen/Senators.
Posted by: Adrian | Sunday, September 09, 2007
I thought for a long time that I was an Obama voter. But now, I am leaning a little toward Hillary. Still haven't really made up my mind yet. I tend to vote based on foreign policy and national security issues.
Posted by: A.E. | Monday, September 10, 2007
Congress is, by design, cross-dealing, corrupt, and yielding to political influence. My concern is not that individual Congressmen truly feel anti-Americanism in their heart, but that the anti-Americanism that exists among the "base" of the party will find its way into policy.
Do you still wish examples?
"I tend to vote based on foreign policy and national security issues."
I'm almost the same way. While I have my own views on much of culture, I don't think politics is the best way to alter them.
That said, the Supreme Court did tremendous damage to the nation earlier this century, and repairing that harm is one of my priorities, as well.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, September 10, 2007
I like Miss OPRA ,BUT SHE IS DEAT WRONG ,BY TRYING TO BUY sENATOR OBAMA INTO THE WHITE HOUSE .
This could be the end of America .
We are in a most criticle state in every way ,Senator Obama is not for President yet .
I feel it is irresponceble ,with Opras influence to the public ,for her to get in and Stand by her Men .
We can not affort to make a other Mistake ,we can only hope that Amareca becomes America again .
We need same one who knows the political zone .
I do think that Obama is a great Democrat and has a lot to offer ,but does not have what it takes to become a President at this time.
Posted by: thea schloser | Monday, September 10, 2007
Interesting... I assumed Giuliani's foreign policy was a joke after hearing all his rhetoric, but his article in Foreign Affairs showed a lot of correct insight he doesn't display on the campaign trail. Giuliani will almost certainly nominate bad judges, even if we ignore the abortion issue. (if the 2nd Amendment makes it to the SCOTUS after just one Giuliani nomination, it could be disastrous)
I could care less what the wingnuts think, I care what the candidates think. I'll take treacherous over idiotic if it gets better results - which is why I'll vote bin Laden over Edwards. Bin Laden's anti-corporate policies would never pass Congress, but Edwards's might.
Posted by: Adam | Tuesday, September 11, 2007
"I could care less what the wingnuts think, I care what the candidates think. I'll take treacherous over idiotic if it gets better results - which is why I'll vote bin Laden over Edwards. Bin Laden's anti-corporate policies would never pass Congress, but Edwards's might."
A good point. Among those we disagree with, there are moderates we can work with and moderates we can't.
"I do think that Obama is a great Democrat and has a lot to offer ,but does not have what it takes to become a President at this time."
Interesting! Could you say more?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Do you still wish examples?"
I don't know about him, but I do anyways, and please use examples that make up double digit percentages of the base.
I remember you describing to me face-to-face how you picture the Republicans as corrupt as well as incompetent and the Democrats as anti-American. I asked you to explain your position on the Democratic party, but it seems that you never got around to it until now. Now you say that the anti-American elements are from the base at the time being and could potentially trickle their way upward.
So, using the same context that you set up for your criticism of the Democratic party (being of the base and not their reps), is it safe to translate your corruption criticism of the Republican party as something that exist only in the base and that could potentially trickle its way up as well?
Sorry if I come off as condescending, but I really can't think of a way to ask my question in a more polite manner than to which I have.
Posted by: Jeffrey James | Thursday, September 13, 2007
Your comment is excellent, and much appreciated.
I've mentioned the apparent battle between the base-extremes of both parties as the stupid v. the treasonous before.
Consider for a moment the issues that are most hurting both parties, not just for the moment but for years: the Republicans on immigration and the Democrats on defense. As immigrant groups tend to vote for the party that naturalizes them, anti-naturalization policies are self-defeating. Yet the Republican Party's rhetoric currently runs the gamut from ending even legal immigration (Tancredo) to building a giant wall in the desert before moving forward with integration. It's stupid.
For the Democrats, their poison is national security. Since the mid-Vietnam-War on, attacks on stated US objectives and US service personnel come primarily from the Democratic Party. The recent and bizarre "General Betray Us" ad , for example, is the latest in two generations of personal attack over the men and women of the armed forces. Reflexive hostility to allies of the human rights (South Vietnam, the contras, etc.) on human rights grounds combined with silence about the human rights violations of our enemies (North Vietnam, the Sandinistas) is another example.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, September 15, 2007
I would hope that whomever gets the nomination for either party is not gullible. Do remember how many times Hillary not only believed a certain President's explanations - but went on the attack for him. This worries me. Was she so dumb - or would she rather place the blame on others and play dumb? Either scenario is disturbing. There are other world leaders who would charm her also.
Posted by: mmm | Monday, September 17, 2007
The Clintons had a marriage of convenience throughout their careers. Hillary had to defend Bill in the same way that one Iraqi Sheik has to defend his brother-in-law, and for the same reasons: confluence of interests, not "love."
Recall how the Katrina mess developed: not out of malice or gullibility, but out of Bush being more focused on other issues (national security, war on terror, etc.). Likewise, Bill's self-destructive tendencies got the best of him in part because Hillary was more focused on areas that interested her (her career, national politics), rather than her home and family environment.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, September 17, 2007
In terms of servicemen and servicewomen, what about attacks on Kerry, Kerrey, Cleland, Murtha, and Duckworth?
Also, maybe the American Left gives our allies a harder time because we hold them to a higher standard than our enemies, or else why would we be allies with them? Just because I may criticize Israel more than the Palestine doesn't mean I ignore Hamas' actions, but rather I expect Israel to live up to the standard that they hold themselves to in terms of civility in the region.
Posted by: Jeffrey James | Friday, September 28, 2007
There is a qualitative difference between served, who served in the past, seeking to effect the political debate and a soldier doing his job. The explains why retired servicemen such as John Kerry are criticized for not being heroic enough  while serving officers such a Peter Pace are criticized for airing their personal views .
Certainly the idea that we pay more attention to those closer, better, etc is natural. One wonders if the people of Africa are better or worse off for our closer scrutiny of the European empires than the local dictatorships. Or if our friendly contempt for the Saigon government helped the Vietnamese people very much.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, September 28, 2007