I'll go ahead and pop the politics cherry. Admittedly, I am conservative, although I have voted for a few Democrats in the past. I am not exactly ecstatic with the current administration, but I think that our troops should remain in Iraq and I expect to vote for the Republican candidate.

All that said, has there ever been a candidate that looks LESS presidential than Hillary? What a joke. The democratic primary is here in SC on Saturday and EVERY commercial is Obama and Clinton. Every time I see it, I almost think, "I'd wear a fairy suit if she . . . " But then I stop before I finish the thought. I will stop short of any predictions, but I just don't see the general public electing Hillary in November.

My wife is a liberally-leaning independent and would love to see a female president, but the site of Hillary repulses even her. I've got to think she is not alone.

cool application that asks you 11 questions and matches you with a candidate who answered similarly

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm


tweak the sliders to the right of all the candidates when you complete the questions for more accurate results

No one would be surprised that I have very strong opinions in this area. I am probably a primary reason that we have avoided politics. I could write pages and pages about the direction that our government has taken over the last hundred years and where we are today in this climate, but I will try to stay reserved and sum up my points as I make them.

First, as to Hillary Clinton. 1) Voting for any candidate based on their gender or skin color is a terrible way to elect a president. There will be voters who will do exactly that, however - and she will draw a lot of votes for no other reason than that. 2) Having lived in New York and seeing her pick up roughly 70% of the vote in her first campaign for Senate was downright frightening. The political bent of that state was a small contributor (however minor) to our decision to move out almost 3 years ago. 3) Her ideas about the role of government should scare everyone. She stands on the socialist/communist wing of the Democratic party. Kiss the "unalienable rights" you have left goodbye. 4) Even doing a small amount of research into her and her husbands past about how they have handled their political supporters, friends, and allies reflects a cutthroat mentality, figuratively at the very least [and plenty of not-so-figurative allegations as well].

Until this year, I never was involved in a political campaign of any kind and pretty much voted down the Republican party line. However, I have always had a bit of a problem doing so, as the Republicans don't necessarily put up the best or most conservative candidate in the race (neither do the Democrats).

I am a strict Constitutionalist and believe the government should have limited powers. I am supporting Ron Paul this year. I have donated money to his campaign as well as gone door to door 3 times this months handing out information about his voting record and his stance on the role of government. SF brought up the war and I fully understand that Ron Paul has been painted out as an "anti-war" candidate. More appropriately, he would be considered a "anti-this-war" candidate based on the process by which we entered the war (without Congressional approval) and our reasons for going to war. There will never be a candidate who we wholly support every single one of their beliefs and ideals. My support of him hinges on a single point: limited government. That single ideal is the foundation for everything he has done and believed in since he first entered Congress in the early 1970's. And his record has remained consistent. That is the type of leader I want to see as President of our country.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skip,

quote:

Originally posted by SaintFan:
All that said, has there ever been a candidate that looks LESS presidential than Hillary?

Probably not, but I don't think any of the current competition looks any more presidential than her either. To bad the only real chance of being president is if you're already rich. It really narrows down our choices.

quote:

Originally posted by Sportz Genius:
To bad the only real chance of being president is if you're already rich. It really narrows down our choices.

More accurately, you have to be who the party wants. Watch the way the media portrays the candidates in both parties. There will be very prominent candidates who are largely ignored. In the Democratic party, it's Edwards. Despite finishing #2 in Iowa ahead of Hillary, the media would have us believe the race is Obama vs. Hillary. If they ignore his impact enough, you will steadily see his percentages decline while the others each gain. The same is true in the Republican party, though there are more candidates. We are being led to believe that its McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. Never mind that you have someone like Paul who is consistently getting roughly 10% in every state, including #2 in Nevada. Then they spend time focusing on someone like Giuliani who is only getting 1-2% in each state.

I'd have a hard time donating money and going door to door for a candidate that has no shot at winning, not even in his party.

I listened to a radio interview a few weeks ago and liked everything Ron Paul had to say, but like Boomer I don't see the point putting effort into someone who has no chance.

Actually I'll probably never vote anyway, it's all out of my hands.

That is the problem of our devotion to the 2-party system. We willingly accept the "lesser-of-two-evils" mentality rather than vote for someone who could actually be good for the country. Inevitably we end up with exactly what we ask for...and both parties are equally oppressive and controlling of the citizenry. It makes the de Tocqueville quote I have used for some time in my sig that much more appropriate.

And by not voting, it is partly in your hands. It's the "as long as it doesn't affect me" way of thinking with the exception that by not voting at all you have nothing to ever complain about when it does affect you.

And ask youself (Boomer) why he has no chance... Is that because he really doesn't have that chance because of his ideals? Or is it because that is the message you and I are being fed day in and day out by the media? I can tell you flat out that it is the latter. It doesn't take more than a handful of clips from your favorite news station: CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, etc. Whether you believe one has a political bend one way or another, ultimately they are deciding who the candidates are who are legitimate - and their willful downplay and outright ignorance of the rest is painfully obvious.

In the end, I know he will not win the candidacy, but if his message gets in the hearts of 15-20% of America maybe we can actually change the thinking in this country.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skip,

quote:

Originally posted by Skip:
And by not voting, it is partly in your hands. It's the "as long as it doesn't affect me" way of thinking with the exception that by not voting at all you have nothing to ever complain about when it does affect you.

It's not that so much, it's just that I don't see the value of my single vote so I don't take the time to cast it. It's a shitty perspective but I'm young. P Diddy's "vote or die" campaign makes me want to vote even less. I'm sure some day I'll find a motivation to vote, but not today.

Imagine if the millions of Americans with that attitude (not that it doesn't have a certain sense of validity) suddenly started voting...

I do think that, all the time. My response, and all of theirs, is "you first"

So the complacent will vote only if the rest of the complacent will vote? That doesn't make any sense. How do you ever decide who the "you first" is? Plenty of Americans vote, but they don't qualify among the "you first"? Somewhere I am missing your logic. Like you said, you're young. When you realize just how much of your life is determined by the decisions made by government, your thinking will change. Unfortunately, I think America has been complacent for so long that changing direction may no longer be possible.

Again it doesn't have anything to do with not believing the decisions made my government have a direct effect on my life. I know the government directly influences my life. It has to do with my one vote being meaningless, or at least that is my perception of it, and I don't yet require the personal gratification that comes with casting a vote.

You mentioned the millions of americans with my same thought process, who maybe feel the need to be heard but don't vote because they know their vote is meaningless, and that if all of us banded together we could make a dent in the polls. Somebody has to start that bandwagon and it isn't going to be me, 'you first' and then I'll follow. If a million people share the 'you first' philosophy then there is nobody to start the bandwagon.

That being said.. the Ron Paul bandwagon has picked up quite a lot of support of otherwise dormant non-voters, and I am seriously considering jumping on board.



On the other hand, I like the fact that the U.S. presidential election ranks so low in terms of voter turnout as compared with the rest of the countries of the world. A non-vote is a vote of disapproval, or sadly its probably more likely laziness, but either way we've got the most of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Skip:
Imagine if the millions of Americans with that attitude (not that it doesn't have a certain sense of validity) suddenly started voting...

. . . you'd never again see another Republican winner.

Skip, I agree with most of your views. I'd place myself as fiscally conservative and socially neutral. I love Paul's view of government. The statement I hate to always hear or see is something like "repeal Bush's tax cuts and use the savings to fund xxxxxxx". I irritates me that some view my tax dollars as their "savings". I will probably vote for Paul in the primary if he's still around and don't see that as a wasted vote. Now, if when the primaries are over he decides to run as an independent, I will likely not vote for him. At that point, I think my vote is better used by voting "the lesser of two evils".

quote:

Originally posted by BuckeyeArt:
. . . you'd never again see another Republican winner.

I'm not so sure that's true. But what I do think is true is that we may actually see a "true" conservative representative from the Republican party. And perhaps we may actually see someone from a 3rd party have a significant impact.

Perot demonstrated that an independant can have a major impact on an election. His 20% had an effect on the outcome. If nothing else, to show than neither of the other candidates had a majority of the country behind them. He failed in a number of areas, most notably that his campaign was premised more on the fact that he wasn't one of the "lesser of two evils". And all he focussed on was budget and economics. But I digress from the current year.

Until this past year, I also was of the "lesser of two evils" mindset. From the time I was eligible to vote until the elections of 2006, I voted straight down the party line. There have been things to like about most administrations, as well as things not to like. It would be unrealistic and impossible to agree with anyone in office 100% of the time.

But my mindset has changed. And it has not done so due to an unhappiness with the current administration (though I could certainly spend hours detailing where I believe they have failed). My mindset has changed as I have studied our government. Studied its present and its past. Studied my own personal beliefs and how those should or shouldn't impact my beliefs about government. And where I have arrived is quite simple: a return to a government bound to the Constitution.

We have errantly moved off the path of understanding the role of our government. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a figment of our imagination. We have abandoned the beliefs of the founding fathers of this country. We have moved to a top-down mindset and not a bottom-up one.

My hope in Ron Paul's campaign is just that - restoring to the people the proper mindset of our government. Our government is there to serve the people, not to control them. Yet, we have subjugated ourselves to it - accepting the top-down philosophy. And I'd like to see things restored to the way they should be and we can be citizens again.

And you are all probably now saying...this is why we have avoided politics.

But I have been very careful not to go off and start criticizing candidates, administrations, etc. with my lone comments re: Ms. Clinton. And I believe those were very fair.

There are alot of voters who shouldn't vote also. Being in Wisconsin there are alot of hunters, and I know alot of them vote republican every time based on the one fact they are afraid they will lose their guns as that's what the NRA drives into their heads. And they will ignore every other issue, usually more important ones.

If you don't follow these candidates fully and know all the issues, which few people do. You're probably better off not voting.

whose taking away my guns.

quote:

Originally posted by TenTimes:
It has to do with my one vote being meaningless, or at least that is my perception of it, and I don't yet require the personal gratification that comes with casting a vote.

I can't help you with personal gratification, but I can remind you that you live in Florida now. Surely you remember November/December 1999 when we didn't know who was going to be our next president. I don't recall the exact difference in votes, but it was EXTREMELY close in Florida. I was living in Tallahassee at the time and it was crazy. But, if the site of the election board members examining every hanging chad doesn't make you feel like your vote counts, then I can't say anything that would.

Skip, I certainly agree that race and sex are not reasons to select, or not select, a candidate. But, I think a large block of the voting public isn't ready to put their position on issues ahead of their race and sex. In fact, being anti-war and thus, anti-Republican, is so popular now, common sense seems to say that ANY democrat would beat any republican. Oddly, Ron Paul's position on the war is more liberal than each of the democratic candidates. Assuming Paul fails to win the nomination, the war will be a bigger issue in September than it is now. So at a time when almost any D could claim the White House, I find it almost comical that the two front-runners are a woman named Clinton and an African American. If I were a democrat, I would support Edwards because I think the voters would view him more electible.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that enough people watch 24 and are ready for an African-American president. But I just think that for a vast majority of Americans, race is still enough of a polarizing issue to effect the outcome of the race. Of course, voters could choose to point to his inexperience and inconsistencies as a valid reason to not cast a vote in his favor.

Clinton has her own issues. I think she is actually hurt by Bush's performance. Surely there are enough people that realize 1989 was the last time someone NOT named Bush or Clinton was in the White House and they are ready for a change. Fittingly, "Change" is Obama's platform and catch phrase. I wonder where they came up with that one!?

It will be an interesting primary and general election. I am certain that race will become an issue. Someone on Fox will say something similar to what I've written and he'll be labeled a racist by Al Sharpton. I hope it doesn't get to that, but can any of us be surprised. Heck, it was just last season that we all had to listen that the winner of the Superbowl would be the first African-American coach to win the Superbowl. At least this year we're all listening to scoop about Brady's walking boot.

quote:

Originally posted by Sportz Genius:
There are alot of voters who shouldn't vote also. Being in Wisconsin there are alot of hunters, and I know alot of them vote republican every time based on the one fact they are afraid they will lose their guns as that's what the NRA drives into their heads. And they will ignore every other issue, usually more important ones.

A good number of voters are single-issue voters. NRA members indeed vote on the issue of gun ownership. The elderly typically vote solely on the issue of social security. Some vote solely on the issue of abortion. Some on gay rights. Etc, etc, etc. I am not certain you can line up issues based on their importance. To many, their single issue is the most important.

As a brief example, there are plenty who vote solely on the issue of environment. To me, that is a non-issue. Is important to be environmentally wise? Certainly. Do I support the agenda and beliefs of the environmentalist movement? Not a chance.

Clearly, you have a strong anti-NRA opinion, so I wont get into that argument. I am trying to keep my position here relatively unrelated to issues simply because I don't know if arguing about them becomes profitable. In my support of Ron Paul, I am supporting his ideology which is not quite the same as the issues themselves.