2008 Election Previews

[LRU1967]

Personally I think neither party has the best intrests of the country in mind, but I WILL NOT vote, under ANY circumstances, for Hillary Clinton or any Democrats for that matter. Do you really want to vote in a party that supports conduct like this:

This may look like US protests in some muslim country, but its not. These are liberal Democrats "protesting the war" in San Francisco. I am no fan of Bush or the war, but this is just over the top. They actually hate America and these pictures are proof. Are these really the people we want running this country? And don't think I am some right-wing neo-con either, I am very disgusted with the modern Republican party and how it has become a slave to the far religious right. It is becoming a party of theocracy and is no longer conservative in the true meaning of the word. If any of the candidates running today were fit, I would have to say it would be Ron Paul.

[bchris02]

I think it happens quite a bit on the right as well. What about the church out of Kansas that protests all the time? Anyway I don't think either is a good example of both parties. You can be as right wing as you want. But I think it would be a mistake if you truly thought those protesters were a good example of how an average person in the party felt.

[thewizard16]

Oh neat, pictures of ordinary citizens protesting the war in Iraq. Where are the pictures of the senators, governors, mayors, or any other official representatives of the Democratic Party? Anyone could go out and find pictures of people claiming to be Republicans doing some pretty scary stuff like dressing up in white sheets and toting guns around or something equally disturbing. The people in these pictures do not represent the Democratic Party or its ideas and are nothing more than typical Republican smear tactics.

[cowbreath]

I have personally never voted and I'm older than 30. I don't think I could vote intelligently about any candidate so far, and couldn't possibly vote blindly down a party line. That's probably what the parties wanted to happen anyways. I suppose I could learn about a party's platform or what the candidate thinks about every issue and that would be enough to vote. My feelings that candidates just say whatever to get elected (and switch views if convenient or act opposite after elected) and to stay on good terms with their party are probably just immature and not a wise consensus view of all candidates. Even if I knew the candidates personally I probably am not wise enough to know if they have good character, leadership, and wise views. I probably don't even know my stance on half the issues, and any economic issue seems to be easily manipulated to sound good or bad while being too complex too understand.

Anyways, its sad that I am this way, and maybe I should be spending full time figuring about about the candidates like a good citizen. Or is my pro-American morale too low? All I know is that political parties are filling a loophole in our democratic system, a system that is formed with many checks-and-balances to prevent too much power to one person or group.

Anyways, hopefully this post will provoke someone's wisdom for how they dealt with these issues. Until then, I'll probably just keep trusting God and not voters for elected officials and elections, because as we can see, a fellow evangelical Christian president wasn't the godsend that many hoped he would be.

[thewizard16]

I have personally never voted and I'm older than 30. I don't think I could vote intelligently about any candidate so far, and couldn't possibly vote blindly down a party line. That's probably what the parties wanted to happen anyways. I suppose I could learn about a party's platform or what the candidate thinks about every issue and that would be enough to vote. My feelings that candidates just say whatever to get elected (and switch views if convenient or act opposite after elected) and to stay on good terms with their party are probably just immature and not a wise consensus view of all candidates. Even if I knew the candidates personally I probably am not wise enough to know if they have good character, leadership, and wise views. I probably don't even know my stance on half the issues, and any economic issue seems to be easily manipulated to sound good or bad while being too complex too understand.

Anyways, its sad that I am this way, and maybe I should be spending full time figuring about about the candidates like a good citizen. Or is my pro-American morale too low? All I know is that political parties are filling a loophole in our democratic system, a system that is formed with many checks-and-balances to prevent too much power to one person or group.

Anyways, hopefully this post will provoke someone's wisdom for how they dealt with these issues. Until then, I'll probably just keep trusting God and not voters for elected officials and elections, because as we can see, a fellow evangelical Christian president wasn't the godsend that many hoped he would be.

[cowbreath]

I understand what your saying, and I probably could have ended up feeling that way if I hadn't been more politically interested in the past. I've done pretty decent research on the candidates I think have any shot this upcoming election to reach who I like. I never vote straight ticket (the lowest, and least intelligent thing a person can do, I feel) blindly, and I think you should only be voting for an entire party's candidates if you have actually looked into things and feel that this election, your party has the best candidates possible in every field. Platforms for parties change relatively frequently (Republicans didn't used to be the party of big government, big spending, and war, and Democrats didn't used to be as socialist in their tendencies), and candidates can make up their own stances, so I think the individual is upmost when it comes to voting. Last election (and really, the one before that) were dissapointments in most ways, and when I voted, I was not happy about my choice, I felt like I was being offered a mayonnaise sandwich on one side and a sardine smoothie on the other, but I'm more hopeful about this election. That said, I will not let my feelings about a party in general alter my opinions about candidates or what candidates I'll consider. I wouldn't consider myself very intelligent or very patriotic if I did that, and although I don't agree with some of the democratic party's general platform, and I'm quite unhappy with the republican party as a whole, I definitely have candidates on both sides I like, and I think more people should stop being so silly when it comes to party lines and take off their blinders.

[Mith242]

I have personally never voted and I'm older than 30. I don't think I could vote intelligently about any candidate so far, and couldn't possibly vote blindly down a party line. That's probably what the parties wanted to happen anyways. I suppose I could learn about a party's platform or what the candidate thinks about every issue and that would be enough to vote. My feelings that candidates just say whatever to get elected (and switch views if convenient or act opposite after elected) and to stay on good terms with their party are probably just immature and not a wise consensus view of all candidates. Even if I knew the candidates personally I probably am not wise enough to know if they have good character, leadership, and wise views. I probably don't even know my stance on half the issues, and any economic issue seems to be easily manipulated to sound good or bad while being too complex too understand.

Anyways, its sad that I am this way, and maybe I should be spending full time figuring about about the candidates like a good citizen. Or is my pro-American morale too low? All I know is that political parties are filling a loophole in our democratic system, a system that is formed with many checks-and-balances to prevent too much power to one person or group.

Anyways, hopefully this post will provoke someone's wisdom for how they dealt with these issues. Until then, I'll probably just keep trusting God and not voters for elected officials and elections, because as we can see, a fellow evangelical Christian president wasn't the godsend that many hoped he would be.

[masons_dad1]

For someone reasonably intelligent, your blind trashing of one party based mostly on the current and mostly disliked administration (by most republicans as well) and amazing level of fan-boy talk for the other party is dissapointing. At least most people on here have been posting WHY they like candidates, not trashing other people's parties or beliefs.

For someone very anti-war and big spending, what do you think of Paul (regardless of your assessment on his chances to win), or are you a straight ticket voter?

[cowbreath]

I can understand how you feel. I admit I don't really get into politics much. I also generally have mistrust in that candidates always say all sorts of things to get elected. I also find it hard to discuss politics with friends and such. Many times it seems everyone is set on their candidate and party and such. I can't say I've taken it to your extreme and never voted. But I can easily see why people are disenfranchised about the whole political process. So I admit I don't look into it as much as I should either. Although I've been trying to make some more effort this time.

[thewizard16]

While I am most critical of the Republican Party due to the current administration, my views of the GOP have also been affected by the former president George Bush and goes back to Ronald Reagan's presidency. While Reagan is generally viewed by the population as an American hero, myself included, his presidency is also remembered for its failures, including the Iran-Contra Affair and the huge budget deficit he left us. Former president George Bush spent his single term in office performing war exercizes in Iraq and in bed with the former Soviet Union. Finally the country enjoyed 8 years of relatively strong economic growth, improved foreign relations and security under former president Bill Clinton. And that leaves us where we are now after 8 years under the worst president in the history of the United States of America.

Since I actually liked Clinton's presidency and actually felt more American pride and security under his presidency than under any of those others I mentioned, I really should vote straight ticket Democrat. But, since you have brought up Ron Paul I feel I should mention that, while he is a Republican, he does share some of my beliefs and opinions. I am a working class, lower middle-income, American tax-payer and my vote will go to the candidate who best stands for my people and not the candidate who believes America should continue to be built on the broken backs of the working class and strives to make America's wealthy even wealthier. Ron Paul may be the former, but his ideas about taxes and healthcare sound more like ideas that will serve America's wealthy rather than its working class. I mean the difference between eliminating the income tax for someone who makes $25,000 per year and someone who rakes in $100,000 per year would be phenominal. The guy making $100K per year would save more in eliminated taxes than the other earns in a year. No, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. John Edwards will place the burden of America's economy on the wealthiest Americans and give tax credits and tax cuts to the working class who make up the backbone of the American economy. Its far too easy for some rich guy to sit back in his leather recliner and earn more in interest alone than most working class Americans will earn in their lifetimes. Everyday Americans have to be concerned where their next meal will come from and whether they'll have a roof over their head and its time for the wealthy to appreciate thier wealth as much as the guy making $25,000 per year... not to mention the millions of American families surviving on less than $15,000 per year.

No, I am not blindly supporting one party over another. I am looking for a candidate who most represents a better future for my people and not one who is looking for new ways for wealthy Americans to become wealthier. Noone in the Republican camp fits the former bill. John Edwards is the candidate who best serves the interests of hard-working, Low and Middle-class Americans and whose beliefs are not shaped by special interest groups and whose ideas would not only make all Americans wealthier and healthier, but will restore America's role as the wealthiest and most respected country in the world. Shutting the door on the United Nations and trade alliances is not the right direction and will only further alienate the US to other world powers. John Edwards would move the United States to the front of the U.N. and under his presidency lead all the world powers to make the world a wealthier, healthier and safer home for all humanity.

Oh, darn there goes more of that fan-boy talk you mentioned.

[Mith242]

Are the rich being taxed more than everyone else? Warren Buffett has come out and said he should pay more. He pays less than all of his employees. He's apparently looked a lot into it. The other problem I see is that the wealthiest are get more wealthy while overall most everyone else is getting poorer. While you could argue they've worked hard for their money and deserve it, anytime you have most of the wealth concentrated in such a small group and you have a shrinking middle class. There's going to be problems.

[cowbreath]

Are the rich being taxed more than everyone else? Warren Buffett has come out and said he should pay more. He pays less than all of his employees. He's apparently looked a lot into it. The other problem I see is that the wealthiest are get more wealthy while overall most everyone else is getting poorer. While you could argue they've worked hard for their money and deserve it, anytime you have most of the wealth concentrated in such a small group and you have a shrinking middle class. There's going to be problems.

[Mith242]

Well both you and thewiz and masonsdad have good points. I don't feel like we would have a clear-cut solution from what I've heard or understood so far. The US is in a way a corporation that we pay to keep things safe and fair. It helps that those who founded our country, seemed to have that in mind too. However, it is all about money, too, and I guess they reserve the right to judge whether those benefitting too much in our country need to be taxed more. There is definitely a portion of the wealthy who continue to earn more money, and I think I've heard that the top 1% of the America's wealth control more money than the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. Here are state's and country's needs are supplied by large corporations and government, so that is not surprising.

As one who gets tired of complexity and the whining of the classes, I feel like we should just do a flat rate sometimes. Our country has to have a law/rule for every stupid, stinking thing, just like the NFL -- which is always exploited for loopholes and more laws are created. For injustice, common sense should apply and not legalities.

[thewizard16]

Yeah there's no easy fix. I suppose there are some cons to a flat tax, but overall I think it would make things a lot more simpler.

[zman9810]

It's looking more and more like the country will elect either it's first woman president or first African-American president this November. Clinton and Obama are the definite front runners on the Democrat side. I think which ever gets the nomination will unite the party and be enthusiastically supported in the general election.

On the Republican side there seems to be a lot of deep divisions and no clear front runners. Most of the leading candidates have positions or baggage that factions of the party refuse to accept. McCain seems to be the most viable candidate for the general election but probably won't have the full enthusiastic support of the entire party. Huckabee is swinging even further to the right while Romney is treading water. Guliani and Thompson have disappeared and while Paul still has a core of enthusiastic supporters, he isn't gaining mainstream appeal.

It's all making for a historic election that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago.

[Mith242]

It's looking more and more like the country will elect either it's first woman president or first African-American president this November. Clinton and Obama are the definite front runners on the Democrat side. I think which ever gets the nomination will unite the party and be enthusiastically supported in the general election.

On the Republican side there seems to be a lot of deep divisions and no clear front runners. Most of the leading candidates have positions or baggage that factions of the party refuse to accept. McCain seems to be the most viable candidate for the general election but probably won't have the full enthusiastic support of the entire party. Huckabee is swinging even further to the right while Romney is treading water. Guliani and Thompson have disappeared and while Paul still has a core of enthusiastic supporters, he isn't gaining mainstream appeal.

It's all making for a historic election that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago.

[johnnydr87]

That pretty much sums it up.

My hopes are with Edwards. He's really the only Dem who stands a chance in the general election.

Oh... and any one of them will be better choice than Bush was the 2nd time around!

[johnnydr87]

Personally I think neither party has the best intrests of the country in mind, but I WILL NOT vote, under ANY circumstances, for Hillary Clinton or any Democrats for that matter. Do you really want to vote in a party that supports conduct like this:

This may look like US protests in some muslim country, but its not. These are liberal Democrats "protesting the war" in San Francisco. I am no fan of Bush or the war, but this is just over the top. They actually hate America and these pictures are proof. Are these really the people we want running this country? And don't think I am some right-wing neo-con either, I am very disgusted with the modern Republican party and how it has become a slave to the far religious right. It is becoming a party of theocracy and is no longer conservative in the true meaning of the word. If any of the candidates running today were fit, I would have to say it would be Ron Paul.

[cocothief]

I am going with Romney.

He will be best for private enterprise, which will be best for all forms of real estate development.

Under no circumstance will I vote McCain or Hillary. O'Bama and Huckabee maybe.

[Arkansawyer]

Unlike Romney, Mike Huckabee has the underpinnings of an authentic conservative. He is a clear and unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment and the pro-life movement. He's also someone who can broaden the base of the Republican Party, with his record of reaching out to minorities and emphasizing environmental conservation.

As far as helping private enterprise, his Fair Tax plan is the most business-friendly idea put forth by any candidate. It's a transparent tax policy that eliminates the IRS, deregulates business, allows people to keep their entire pay check, and stops penalizing productivity. Huckabee also calls for energy independence within a decade.

I'm convinced that Mike Huckabee is the only Republican who can win the general election, by appealing to the conservative base and reaching out to independents and Democrats. Romney has a very, very limited appeal, and has the highest unfavorable numbers of any candidate. McCain would be Bob Dole 2.0, but without the backing of the conservative base. If Huckabee is not the nominee, I would vote for an independent; hopefully Ron Paul would be available.

[Aporkalypse]

I'm a McCain guy. He's the only candidate I see balancing the budget and cutting spending. He has the track record to back that up. He's the only "fiscal conservative". I see Huck as his VP. They are different but that will broaden the appeal to the social conservatives. I actually like the Fair Tax but it would be very unpopular in a general election. Huck also likes to spend way too much for a Republican, he's a big government Republican. We just had one of those and can't handle another. Romney can't win the general election. He's too dry, too Mormon (being realistic, it's an issue), his fiscal record in Massachusetts was poor (high taxes, high spending).

The democratic race is a lot more interesting, though. At this point I could pretty much flip a coin. I have no idea if Obama or Clinton will win out.

[Arkansawyer]

I'm a McCain guy. He's the only candidate I see balancing the budget and cutting spending. He has the track record to back that up. He's the only "fiscal conservative". I see Huck as his VP. They are different but that will broaden the appeal to the social conservatives. I actually like the Fair Tax but it would be very unpopular in a general election. Huck also likes to spend way too much for a Republican, he's a big government Republican. We just had one of those and can't handle another. Romney can't win the general election. He's too dry, too Mormon (being realistic, it's an issue), his fiscal record in Massachusetts was poor (high taxes, high spending).

The democratic race is a lot more interesting, though. At this point I could pretty much flip a coin. I have no idea if Obama or Clinton will win out.

[monsoon]

.

Regarding the Fair Tax, we know that the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the current tax system; the desire for change is there. It's premature to say that it would be unpopular, because most Americans aren't familiar with the plan. I believe that most people would find the idea of keeping their entire paycheck appealing. A president who supports the Fair Tax could use the bully pulpit to sell the idea to the American people. It already has 77 cosponsors in Congress.

[masons_dad1]

Do you think most Americans would then be happy with a 23% increase (or more) on all retail items as a replacement?

[thewizard16]

Well, I did my part and voted. I was surprised there was no one in line and I didn't have to wait... maybe people are waiting until after work to vote instead of on lunch, as I did.