Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by famousblueraincoat on Apr 10, 2007 9:24:58 GMT -5
I think Edwards might have a shot, if and only if he brings Obama in as his VP candidate. That's a strong ticket. If Edwards does well in the primaries, he'd be wise to do that. I will be voting for Obama in the primaries, but, like the rest of you, I'm concerned about his electability given widespread ignorance and inbred racism.
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 10, 2007 9:34:58 GMT -5
Edwards definitly wants to exhude the Jack Kennedy mystique...smiling, attractive, well-spoken, a blend of charm/folksy/Presidential. For awhile though, going from 2003 on at the national political level, he has been stuck with more of a Jimmy Carter vibe. Carter, despite his many accomplishments outside the office, remains largely frowned upon as a President largely for reasons that are ultra-important today (energy, economics, terrorism, military).
But the battle that he has found himself in with his wife (cancer) is the kind of thing that adds a new dimension to any person, Presidential candidate or not. That, the original post-2004 diagnosis and this sudden recurrance, along with the loss of their young son several years ago, gives Edwards a kind of depth of character that indeed hasn't been seen since JFK. His ability to handle these kinds of serious personal issues should give Americans confidance that they are seeing not only a man of charm and intellect, but of remarkable courage and backbone as well.
I know he apologized and all, but Edwards did vote to give Bush unchecked war powers to INVADE Iraq. That's key to the political struggle that is going on now to undo what has been done. I knew there were no alquaeda in Iraq at the time. I trusted Hans Blix about the WMD's.
Kucinich is the only dem running that opposed the war from the getgo. Anyone now opposing it can be construed as being against it for only political reasons. Just as they may have been for it for only political reasons.
Sherrod Brown from Ohio(a pretty liberal politician) ended up voting in favor of suspending habeus corpus prior to his election in october. he did so to become "electable". Now we have no habeus corpus and a "liberal" in the senate. what good is it if someone will change their principles just to be electable ? Paul Wellstone never sacrificed the ideals of his constituency to be more "electable", but he won election after election anyways. Anything else gets us bad policy and bad laws that remain long after said "electable" candidate retires to a career in lobbying.
On the subject of voting on an "electable" candidate, I feel it is a factor, but a minor one. For example, I voted for Nader in '96 in hopes of him getting enough to get public financing. Electability was not a factor.
In 2000, I felt the stakes were such that I had to vote for Gore as, I thought, a Bush victory would be disasterous. In such an important and close race, electability was a factor.
In general, I vote for who I like regardless, especially in the primaries. (I've voted for 4 different parties in general Presidential elections) But in extreme situations, electability can be a factor.
And if the war is not a big enough issue to stand against in principle by whom you vote for, consider it's economic impact.
I just read yesterday that if we took the projected 2.2 trillion dollars that we will have spent on the war by 2008 and invested it entirely in wind farming, the estimated return would produce 150% of our current energy consumption INDEFINITELY. Which candidate is talking about this as it relates to stopping terrorism?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.... .....
Last Edit: Apr 10, 2007 9:52:40 GMT -5 by snoochio - Back to Top
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 10, 2007 9:55:51 GMT -5
Here's a quick scorecard for those of you playing at home...
GOP: -Rudy Giuliani: former NYC mayor, hero of 9/11, liberal social stances, problematic personal life(especially in the Republican Party), strong supporter of Bush's Iraq policy -John McCain: Arizona Senator, former 'maverick' now hoping to play 'establishment' candidate, supports Iraq surge, struggling mightily with his Iraq rhetoric lately, advanced age -Mitt Romney: former Governor of Massachusets, strong fundraiser thus far, has flipflopped on numerous social issues -Fred Thompson: real life lawyer & he plays one on tv, former Senator from Tennessee, hasn't decided if he's going to run yet -Tommy Thompson: successful former 4 term Governor of Wisconsin, cabinet member for GWB during first term, stepped down and left after a press conference blasting Bush Admin for poor terrorism strategy, was in the final 3 to be Bob Dole's choice for VP in '96, womanizing could be a liabilty -Mike Huckabee: former Arkansas Governor, intelligent and well spoken, Southern Baptist minister, very conservative but a good record on health care, poor fundraiser thus far -Newt Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, very checkered personal history, frequent speaking gaffes, not making a decision yet but appears to be going in that direction -Sam Brownback: Kansas Senator, Christian Conservative darling, strong morals, leary on Iraq War/surge -Tom Tancredo: Colorado Representative, immigration zealot -Duncan Hunter: Cali Rep, Iraq hawk
Dems: -Hilary Clinton: prohibitive frontrunner, lots of experience in politics but only in elective office since 2000, strong fundraiser, doesnt seem capable of taking a strong stance on much anything so far -Barack Obama: Illinois Senator, has charisma unseen since Bobby Kennedy, surprisingly good fundraiser thus far, consistent Iraq War opponent, prone to 'rookie' mistakes -Bill Richardson: New Mexico Governor, former Cabinet member, former foreign Ambassador, probably the most qualified of all the candidates, female butt-pinching could be a problem -John Edwards: former NC Senator and VP candidate, charismatic, good fundraiser, apologized for Iraq vote, personal life gives him strength, Republicans will continue to bring up 'trial lawyer' experience, didm't look too good in '04 debate vs. Cheney -Joe Biden & Chris Dodd - Senators from Delaware and Connecticut respectively -Mike Gravel: former Alaska Senator, out of politics for a long time -Dennis Kucinich: Ohio Representative, not in the race necessarily to win but rather to get his views across to more people than he normally might
Post by sharingintheroo on Apr 10, 2007 9:56:45 GMT -5
I in part agree.
But you have to remember this. John Edwards had to vote based on the information that they were given. Even if he didnt believe it was factual. If he were to vote against it his political career would be just about over. Because the very same info would be used against him. Meaning if the only info you were given prior to a vote said that Iraq had full involvement in 911 and you voted against it, the info would be used against you. It would be like you were a trader.
I think Edwards explained this very well on Tim Russert's show. He was confronted with the fact that Obama at that time made comments standing against the invaision and info. But he made it very clear that Obama had none of the info that they were given. It would be like me or you making the same statement. We may be right in the long run, but our opinions are not based on any tpe of evidence. They are just our uninformed opinions.
Its a sticky wicket. Because of course the guy that right NOW looks better than the guy that was right then. And yes while I am very against this war and occupation, at the time based on the info it was the right choice. Hell I was like Obama screaming that it was BS but I had nothing to base that on but my own opinion. These people had to make a choice based on lies.
The running cost of the war could pay for universal health care, or free college scholarships to public universities for all, or build a million low income houses a year, or pay the salaries of 2 million teachers a year, etc.
The unseen costs are the costs to rebuild the military (all the equipment is worn out) and lifetime healthcare for the wounded. In response to the wounded, here's a scary trend. In 2000, 600-700 were granted lifetimes disability benefits as veterans. In 2004, it was under 200 (with a war going on.) We're cutting corners and benefits for wounded vets at the same time we're asking them to go to war.
This war will be costing us for our entire lifetime.
i am not taking a side for or against the war. i have several family members and friends in the military. some in iraq some waiting to be shipped out for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd time. i know a HUGE factor in the election this year,for me, is how the war will be handled. and i know that the soldiers that i've spoken with are very worried about the outcome being based on popular opinion and not executed properly.
The only thing I have to say is just vote. Doesn't matter what "party" you are/aren't affiliated with.
Just vote...
I agree with that wholeheartedly - I am a Republican but not to the extent that I will vote for someone just because they are Republican - I will vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes down to it because - as Snoochie pointed out - the true representatives of America do not have a shot due to lack of funding because they will not be given the federal dollars to campaign.
I am a vet and my 5 brothers are too. My wife's brother just got out after he served 5 tours in the Mid East with the Marines. I am 100% pro-soldier and 100% against their misuse and mistreatment. Soldiers CANNOT speak out about their orders and/or mission. It is our responsibility to be their voice.
I've thought about the Edwards/Obama ticket. That would be the best for the Dems in the long term I think. That's IF they do what they say they will (witch lets face their not going to).
On the GOP side I'm not sure how things are shaking out. Huckabee could be in a good spot if he throws his two cents in.
On both sides I can see the primaries being soo dirty and underhanded that by the time the election actually shows up people won't care. It'll be the same old same old and the voters will stay home.
I think Edwards/Obama would be a great ticket (and could happen.) But it's way too early to know what's gonna happen.
As for voter turnout, we have the lowest in the industrialized world. In part because corporations like it that way (promoting negative ads to minimizing our influence) and in part because of our system. An elected president, instead of a prime minister, guarantees a 2 party system. It's winner takes all. Third parties get nothing. With a prime minister, 3rd parties can form coalitions to elect the executive. This allows for many parties, like in most of Europe. Of course it weakens the Executive branch, which I personally like but is debatable as to its good/bad points.
I'm an independent that votes mostly democrat, but I find the republican side of things more interesting right now.
McCain is all but done already. He can't raise any money, he's steadfast in his support for Bush and the war, and he's lost his "maverick" ways. I don't think he's got a chance.
Guiliani seems to be loved by a wide majority of republicans. Personally I hate the guy. He's said that he would continue fighting the war in Iraq for as long as it takes. Every speech about terrorism he invokes 9/11. I think he's gonna have a hard time in the primary because the conservatives will have a more conservative candidate them him, guaranteed.
Which brings me to Romney. He seems to be doing very well for himself. He has a very broad appeal. He's raising a ton of money. He's making himself out as a very conservative candidate. That being said, there's no way in hell he wins the general election. Even if Hillary is running against him, he's gonna loose. He has a loser's name. I just see him as another Mondale or Dukakis(grant it they were dems).
The whole thing kinda depends on how things in Iraq are going. I think this whole battle over the war spending bill is gonna be very telling for the democrats. They seem to have alot of bluster and no bite. We'll see.
Post by nomorewarmpabst on Apr 10, 2007 14:11:01 GMT -5
JMHO (love talking politics).... I'm an independent - I side with conservatives, liberals and libertarians depending on the issue.
Personally, none of the Democratic candidates do it for me at all. I would've supported Al Gore, but I'm not sold on his global warming argument. I wish there was a definitive answer instead of scientists coming down on both sides. The only one now I would consider is Obama, but I need to know more more about some of his positions. I would say Bill Richardson, but he has about a good shot of winning as I do.
Which is too bad, because while I do have some conservative tendencies , I think the Democrats ideally stand more for people like myself. In 2004, South Park got it right. You have one of the worst Presidents in history vs perhaps the worst Presidential candidate I have ever seen, John Kerry. He was just awful and I couldn't help but think two things:
1) Is that really the best the Democrats could come up with 2) Wonder if Hillary regrets not running, because Bush was ripe for the picking.
I don't like Romney, it's one thing to change your mind but he appears to be doing it only to satisfy the Christian right. I'm not big on people whose convictions change in order to satisfy their audience. McCain's time has passed, and I'm not sold on Guiliani. I would like for Fred Thompson to enter the race. Gingrich actually makes some very intelligent points about some issues, yet he usually does or says something stupid to counteract that. Plus, I can't see voting for a man who abandonded his cancer striken wife the way he did.
It's too bad that between both parties there isn't a candidate that just stands out as an excellent pick.
"Stealing? How could you?! Haven’t you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain What’s-his-name? We live in a society of laws. Why do you think I took you to all those Police Academy movies? For fun? Well, I didn’t hear anybody laughin’, did you? Except at that guy who made sound effects. Where was I? Oh yeah -- stay out of my booze."
Post by oatmealschnappz on Apr 10, 2007 14:37:18 GMT -5
As much as I wuld love for it not to be true, electability is a factor in this (and every) election. In a perfect world every party would have an equal voice and a fair chance but, this is not a perfect world. Politics is an corrupt and unjust game but, it's a game that will continue to be played according to the predecided and unfair rules already laid-out. Hopefully one day things wil be different but, for the time beingwe need to understand that if we don't play by "their" rules, we will lose. The Republicans seem to understand this. That is why they've held the presidency for twenty of the last twenty-eight years. Unless we want more of the (unbelievably frightening)same, we need to find a way to beat them at their own game. Wich, sadly, is supporting the strongest, most electable opposing candidate.....not our favorite candidate. Politics is a game of power, money and influence and the candidate that best utilizes those three things is the only one who will have a fighting chance. That is who we need to support. While I do (100%) agree that ideas and integruity should be the focus of any fair and honest election, that simply isn't the way it works. I'm not condoning this ridiculous national mindset but, I am trying to aknowledge the 700 lb gorilla in the room. It's a fact. Look back at every presidential election for the last century. It should not be this way, but it most definitely is. As much as it sickens me to say this, I know that it's the truth. In 2000, Nader supporters were the reason that Bush was able to steal the WhiteHouse away from Gore. They took much needed votes away from our rightful president, creating enough of a "workable" gray-area for Jeb and his cronies(and others nationwide) to forge Florida's eventual count. If those tens of thousands of people were trying to "send a message", they absolutely did. The message? "Welcome, President Bush." I know alot of people will say that the majority of Nader supporters wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway. I simply don't believe that. If it is true, then these people should really be ashamed of themselves. It's this kind of apathy and complacency that has brought us to this unfortunate chapter in our nation's history. My point is that we ALL need to vote in every election. We all need to use this wonderful power to try and inact change, in a realistic manner. We need to grow up and face reality. We can either play the game according to the current rules or continue to lose.Standing on the sidelines, being stubbornly idealistic, waiting for some radical "one step" change will never work. The horribl Nader debacle of 2000 proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, it will work against us. If it works against us, it works for them. That about says it all.
These are just my personal thoughts and beliefs. I mean no offense to anyone here. Quite the opposite, actually. We all need to get together, fight, win and begin the slow process of change.
That is my last post in this thread. I've said what I want to say.
Last Edit: Apr 10, 2007 14:41:42 GMT -5 by snoochio - Back to Top
As a proud member of the Libertarian Party, I must say that IMO if you vote for either the Democrat or Republican candidate you are only contributing to the problems this country faces. Neither major party is even discussing the issues most seriously affecting our great country. If you feel that my vote "cost" Al Gore the election I would reply that if Al Gore couldn't beat a complete moron like GWB, then he had no business being president. If you insist on voting for the lesser of two evils then don't be surprised when you elect evil.
Post by ChiefPemperToadWigginsky on Apr 10, 2007 16:59:56 GMT -5
confusedsince81 said:
I made a mistake when i was 18, so I can't vote
My cousin is in the same boat as you. But thta doesn't stop him from volunteering and going door to door to promote his fave canidate. You still have a voice no matter what the law says!!!!
Post by ChiefPemperToadWigginsky on Apr 10, 2007 17:06:31 GMT -5
jonhasnoh said:
As a proud member of the Libertarian Party, I must say that IMO if you vote for either the Democrat or Republican candidate you are only contributing to the problems this country faces. Neither major party is even discussing the issues most seriously affecting our great country. If you feel that my vote "cost" Al Gore the election I would reply that if Al Gore couldn't beat a complete moron like GWB, then he had no business being president. If you insist on voting for the lesser of two evils then don't be surprised when you elect evil.
totally agree with you. I absolutely beleive the demos and repubs are just playing good cop and bad cop with us. Our rights have been slowly stripped on both ends of the spectrum for 30 years. I do however think Obama is a good man with great ideas but will become comprimised by the entire process of running. I blame the media more than anyone for not allowing candidates from third parties to get their time in. Last election, the only news about Nader was where he was speaking and the amount of money he was trying to raise. Nader might be old but he has awesome ideas, but he is just an example. We should have the option of knowing just as much about every candidate as we do with the two-headed monster.
I can't blame the media. Responsibility lies with "we the people". If only 10% of eligible voters who didn't vote in 2004 had voted Libertarian, we would be living in a much different world today. I will blame the media for perpetuating the myth that voting for anyone other than the Republicrat is "throwing your vote away".
Ok. So, it's been said that Obama won't win because, a) America won't vote for, "a black guy" and b) because his middle name is Hussein. The people that won't vote for him because of these reasons, wouldn't vote Democrat anyway. It's my belief that it's generally the Bush supporter types that would discredit and/or not vote for a candidate based on a name or skin color. Also keep in mind, that the states where these people are in the majority are "red" states, so that states' electoral votes , wouldn't go to a Democrat anyway, whether his name is Hussein, Jefferson, or Fitzgerald. Thats just my logic.
Clinton campaign is the one on talk shows reminding America that his middle name is Hussein and he is "half Muslim." The dems are fighting each other worst then republicans are. In his book Obama told how when he was first in senate Pres Bush came to meet everyone and pulled him aside and told him that any who became as popular as he did as fast as he did should watch out for attacks and they wont all be from the republicans. Point is the dems are doing what the president knew they would do. Take Obama down.
If it was because of a felony most states can have that waived. I worked in prison for many years. We would have many of the men leaving concerned about this.
Post by ChiefPemperToadWigginsky on Apr 10, 2007 20:09:29 GMT -5
jonhasnoh, yeah the people are to blame most of all but most of the Uhmerican's votes rely purely on the information that the media feeds them. I think most of the 10% that could of voted differently don't know what a Libertarian candidate or any other 3rd party stands for, and the media should enlighten those who know nothing outside of left and right.
I agree 100% that it is our responsibility and "we get the government we deserve." Of course apathy leads to a corrupt unrepresentative government. But let's not fool ourselves and think that voting Libertarian would lead to a libertarian eutopia. I've voted LP before and even help start 2 LP college chapters in TN but I'm not totally sold on the LP. I DO think they have a valid point of view which should be heard. I also think they are intentually left out of the debate because of their legitimacy and danger to the established parties.
I am an avid civil libertarian and the modern LP seems to concentrate far too much on economic liberties while overlooking civil liberties. I will not overlook property forfeitures, false imprisonment and domestic spying just to save my wallet. And I've seen far too many LP's do just that.
LP also neglects to address the prominent corrupting power of our time; the Corporation. When the Constitution was written, government was the biggest abuser of power and usurper of human rights. Now corporations have overwhelmed governments and the LP philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism could be dangerous.
It may be that Govts are so inherently corrupt that massive limitations are the only answer but it would only be the better of two evils. Either way the 2 party system sucks but with an elected President, there's no other real option (see previous post.)
I love talking politics so forgive me if I post too much.
Also regarding felonies, you should check with the election commission. I'm with an organization which has just gotten TN to pass a law allowing felons who are out of the correction's system (off probation/parole and paid restitution) to get their voting rights back by simply filling out a form and having it signed by the Dept of Corrections. Many states are passing this so check and see what yours does.
Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wall Maybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that long So if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream? I thought it was the Story of the World!
Sorry if I sounded like an infomercial. While I certainly don't prescribe to all tenets of Libertarianism, I do feel it is the one party talking about the issues important to me. The Republicrats are only addressing civil liberties in the context of how much they can clamp down on them. My main point was that my vote was not wasted simply because I choose to use it to support a party that actually is talking about what is important to me.
Agreed. No vote is wasted. The 2 parties want you to think your vote is a waste so they can have free reign. If everyone voted, and voted their conscience, we'd have a much better govt.
, I think the Democrats ideally stand more for people like myself. In 2004, South Park got it right. You have one of the worst Presidents in history vs perhaps the worst Presidential candidate I have ever seen, John Kerry. He was just awful and I couldn't help but think two things:
