MikeDC
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,643
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 38
Going through the list of candiates, I'm sure I'll irritate most everyone because I'm usually pretty strongly critical of both "teams": </p>
Democrats:</p>
Barack Obama: Is he serious when he says he'd fight in Pakistan? That might be necessary, but the unnecessary tough talk makes him look a little out of his element and puppydog youthful. I haven't decided whether there's actual substance to this man or whether he's the Black John Edwards.</p>
John Edwards: No. In addition to being a world class fop, he seems to be a hollow, feckless lying shell of a man. This article pretty much lays it out for me. A man who's willing to lie so bravely, badly, and needlessly shouldn't be within thousands of miles of the presidency.</p>
Hilary Clinton: No. I could go on about a variety of things that bother me about her, but the most obvious thing is that I think we're getting to the point of some sort of danger (although an intangible one I can't put a precise description to) if we've an increasingly powerful branch of the government controlled by two families for something 24-28 years. I'm sure lots of folks will quibble and justify it to themselves that it's "better than the alternative", but I think this is a big picture consideration that overrides a lot of other stuf. Life will go on if someone else is president, just like it always has. Thinking otherwise is a step down the wrong road. And a quarter to third of a century under the control of these people just shouldn't sit right with anyone.</p>
Bill Richardson: Relatively sane, mixed with a royal sense of entitlement. Ick. Probably doesn't have a chance, but I'd rank him as the second best democrat the moment.</p>
Joe Biden: No. Very smart guy who I wouldn't entrust with anything requiring tact.</p>
</p>
Republicans:</p>
Ron Paul: My heart goes out to you bud, but nobody wants to hear common sense these days. I also think it's worth pointing out here the naivete of Libertarian foreign policy. Fundamentally I agree with Paul that we'e better off not being entangled in the affairs of other countries. But there are two important disagreements. 1. That doesn't mean walking away from a problem is the best solution- that's simplistic and 2. The tone and tenor of the argument as he puts it serves to justiy the "it's all America's fault" crowd, which largely is a load of crap. By that I mean that American might be better off extricating itself from peoples' business, but other peoples' largely have themselves to blame, and no one else, for their failures. That being said, doing a half-assed cut and run sort of thing in the Middle East would largely be creating a bad situation for which we are to blame.</p>
John McCain: No. I'm much more pro-immigration than the average guy. And much more into political speech. And the two biggest things that McCain has done in the past ten years or so were a mind-numbingly bad immigration bill and a counterproductive bill regulating what people could and couldn't say in political campaigns. This, as they say, is not a track record of success. I've got tremendous respect for him as an individual, but I don't see a lot I agree on with him politically.</p>
Rudy Guliani: Maybe. The downside here is he's an irritable workaholic. He doesn't work and play well with others (to quote what my report cards usually said about me when I was little). He's also a man who's actually accomplished real things in his life, and done so in ways that required some measure of personal courage and leadership on his part. I'd feel pretty comfortable with him running the show. My big concern is that his relatively sensible positions (pro growth economics, social moderation, a low tolerance for bullshit) won't get him very far in the Republican primaries.</p>
Mitt Romney: Looks a little too slick for me, and again, is yet another progeny of the ruling class. No thanks. Doesn't bother me at all that he's Mormon. Bothers me that he's a career politician and the son of a career politician. As a slight positive, he seemed capable of governing a state and he's at least thought somewhat seriously about foreign policy issues.</p>
Fred Thompson: No. Currently running on the platform of "I'm not any of the other guys". Is Ronald Reagan without the common sense libertarianism and genuine desire to do the right thing that Reagan hand. That is, he's just another pol, who happened to be an actor too, not an actor who figured out he actually had something to say.</p>
</p>
Democrats:</p>
Barack Obama: Is he serious when he says he'd fight in Pakistan? That might be necessary, but the unnecessary tough talk makes him look a little out of his element and puppydog youthful. I haven't decided whether there's actual substance to this man or whether he's the Black John Edwards.</p>
John Edwards: No. In addition to being a world class fop, he seems to be a hollow, feckless lying shell of a man. This article pretty much lays it out for me. A man who's willing to lie so bravely, badly, and needlessly shouldn't be within thousands of miles of the presidency.</p>
Hilary Clinton: No. I could go on about a variety of things that bother me about her, but the most obvious thing is that I think we're getting to the point of some sort of danger (although an intangible one I can't put a precise description to) if we've an increasingly powerful branch of the government controlled by two families for something 24-28 years. I'm sure lots of folks will quibble and justify it to themselves that it's "better than the alternative", but I think this is a big picture consideration that overrides a lot of other stuf. Life will go on if someone else is president, just like it always has. Thinking otherwise is a step down the wrong road. And a quarter to third of a century under the control of these people just shouldn't sit right with anyone.</p>
Bill Richardson: Relatively sane, mixed with a royal sense of entitlement. Ick. Probably doesn't have a chance, but I'd rank him as the second best democrat the moment.</p>
Joe Biden: No. Very smart guy who I wouldn't entrust with anything requiring tact.</p>
</p>
Republicans:</p>
Ron Paul: My heart goes out to you bud, but nobody wants to hear common sense these days. I also think it's worth pointing out here the naivete of Libertarian foreign policy. Fundamentally I agree with Paul that we'e better off not being entangled in the affairs of other countries. But there are two important disagreements. 1. That doesn't mean walking away from a problem is the best solution- that's simplistic and 2. The tone and tenor of the argument as he puts it serves to justiy the "it's all America's fault" crowd, which largely is a load of crap. By that I mean that American might be better off extricating itself from peoples' business, but other peoples' largely have themselves to blame, and no one else, for their failures. That being said, doing a half-assed cut and run sort of thing in the Middle East would largely be creating a bad situation for which we are to blame.</p>
John McCain: No. I'm much more pro-immigration than the average guy. And much more into political speech. And the two biggest things that McCain has done in the past ten years or so were a mind-numbingly bad immigration bill and a counterproductive bill regulating what people could and couldn't say in political campaigns. This, as they say, is not a track record of success. I've got tremendous respect for him as an individual, but I don't see a lot I agree on with him politically.</p>
Rudy Guliani: Maybe. The downside here is he's an irritable workaholic. He doesn't work and play well with others (to quote what my report cards usually said about me when I was little). He's also a man who's actually accomplished real things in his life, and done so in ways that required some measure of personal courage and leadership on his part. I'd feel pretty comfortable with him running the show. My big concern is that his relatively sensible positions (pro growth economics, social moderation, a low tolerance for bullshit) won't get him very far in the Republican primaries.</p>
Mitt Romney: Looks a little too slick for me, and again, is yet another progeny of the ruling class. No thanks. Doesn't bother me at all that he's Mormon. Bothers me that he's a career politician and the son of a career politician. As a slight positive, he seemed capable of governing a state and he's at least thought somewhat seriously about foreign policy issues.</p>
Fred Thompson: No. Currently running on the platform of "I'm not any of the other guys". Is Ronald Reagan without the common sense libertarianism and genuine desire to do the right thing that Reagan hand. That is, he's just another pol, who happened to be an actor too, not an actor who figured out he actually had something to say.</p>
</p>
