You bash conservatives on this board all day long.

Which 3 Republicans would you actually vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

Herb

We can vote for 3?

I have no idea. I don't even know what Democrats I would vote for.

McCain is my closest at this point. It doesn't bother me that he didn't play the game all that well last time. He's smart in the areas that count for me. I think he's his own man more than he was in the past.

Who else is running?

Is Abe Lincoln on the ballot?

Seriously, if I was to consider a Republican candidate he or she would have to be one who has never worked a single minute in the Bush Administration. He or she would also have to be closely aligned to the middle of the conservative agenda than what the Republicans have typically offered of late.

I can't really think of one I'd vote for. I would have said McCain a year ago, but he has really swung much too far to the right for my tastes...

0 for 3.
It's telling that so far, you guys are unable to name even 1 Republican you'd vote for. This really is turning out to be a liberals-only haven.

It reminds me of the reporter, who when told that Mr. Nixon won the election to become president, she exclaimed: "How can that be? I don't know anyone who voted for him!"

Herb

I'm not a liberal so I didn't feel right responding in this thread. Sorry.

Andrew

Oh I see now; It was a trick question.

OK - I give up. Which 3 would I vote for Herb?

If one votes like a liberal and talks like a liberal...

Herb

Is this one of your " I'm going to rub it your face that you probably won't vote for a Republican candidate " threads?

Uhhhh - guilty as charged? I have no idea where this is going.

I like Ike.

I wonder who the 3 Republicans Jesus would vote for.











Am still wondering.

Maybe I should start a "OK, Fascists" thread for you to respond in, Herb?

If one votes like a fascist and talks like a fascist...

Andrew

The three best for the job:

ME, MYSELF, and I

And if I can't do that then Larry, Moe, and Curly have my vote! Oh wait...can't due that cause of term limits...he can't be elected again! LOL

0 for 6.

You guys are proving my point. The bizarre part is that you either can't see your blind partisanship, or simply don't care.

Don't be surprised when conservatives do exactly the same thing.

And you guys want to change the political landscape to less partisan bickering and more Kum-Bah-Yah?

All hat. No cattle.

Herb

I am so ashamed.

I was just joking man....it's way to early to tell! I want to see some debates before I cast my vote for who will lead this great country. I refuse to make any decision like that based purely on political party. I need to see how they respond under pressure.

Edit Add:
Also I want to see how they run their campaign. The one that can resist mud slinging speaks volumes as to that person's character. Win the election on merrit not on personal attack's on the others person DUI 45 years ago!

All of this information about " us " is gathered because we can't name 3 Republicans for whom we would vote today?

Why 3?

Why not 7?

Or 1?

Seems rather arbitrary.

McCain or Rudy, but only if Rudy comes up with a plan to take care of Iraq that is different than Bush's plan.

So, far, to this liberal, McCain tops any Democrat running.

Look.

We're not talking marrying someone here. Just 3 possible Republican candidates you might like enough to vote for.

I figure if you can name 3 people who you'd at least strongly consider, it shows you have more than a knee-jerk response to our rapidly unfolding political landscape.

And guys, it's not that far off now. It's next year when we vote.

When we're done, I'll weigh in with 3 democrats I would strongly consider.

Herbert Milhous Nixon IV

OK - how about this compromise:

I will consider ALL choices given. Every single one of them.

Can I have a sucker now?

OK..
I'll play..

Not that they are running, but based on what I know now..

John Warner
Chuck Hagel
Arlen Specter

Three Senators who have at one time or another stood up to Bush's excesses.


BTW.. Greetings from Minneapolis (brrrrrr)
Home of the future Senator from Minnesota: Al Franken.

Oh we can pick people that aren't running? Is that what the game rules are?

Herb writes:
You guys are proving my point. The bizarre part is that you either can't see your blind partisanship, or simply don't care.

Right - you start a thread with "OK, Liberals..." and then complain about partisanship? You're proving your own point. Self-fulfilling prophecies are great, aren't they?

Andrew

Chickenjuggler,

I didn't see anything that said we couldn't, so I took liberties.

Rice keeps coming up, but she's not running, yet.

You want to know why they can't pick three?

"All hat. No cattle." best describes your candidates so far.

OK.

Regan.
Nixon.
McCain.

Did I hear someone nominate the ghost of Senator Lincoln Chafee?

Er, ah...that's Reagan. Unless you meant Judith Regan.

However, there's no deduction on spelling.

Plus, you get bonus points for Mr. Nixon.

Herb

Ron Paul of Texas
James A. Leach of Iowa
John N. Hostettler of Indiana
Constance A. Morella of Maryland
Amo Houghton of New York
John J. Duncan of Tennessee

These members of the House of Representatives all voted against the war resolution in 2002, along with former Senator Lincoln Chafee. We ought to at least acknowledge these reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful members of the GOP. They knew the personal and political risks of opposing the war were outweighed by the risks of our country going to war.

Oh, not one of them is a serious candidate? Hmmm... no wonder everyone is stumped.

Here are some names to chew on, from current and former potential Republican candidates.

Condi Rice
John McCain
Rudy Guiliani
Tommy Thompson
Jeb Bush
Alan Keyes
Orrin Hatch
Steve Forbes
Liddy Dole
Lamar Alexander
Pat Buchanan

It's like a big buffet! Many of these aren't viable candidates in '08, but may give us something to think about.

I thought he meant Don Regan LOL! But he's as dead as Nixon.

Andrew

Quiz time. Which three of these people likes to wear a dress?

Condi Rice
John McCain
Rudy Guiliani
Tommy Thompson
Jeb Bush
Alan Keyes
Orrin Hatch
Steve Forbes
Libby Dole
Lamar Alexander
Pat Buchanan

(sorry Edsel for stealing the list)

If you add Mark Foley to the list I could answer it.

...actually most of us are not happy with and discuss the poor performance of GOP members, not doing a solid job governing and who currently self-identify as Conservative.

Not voting GOP, for any reason, until that changes.

Sorry Herb.

Don't like it? I sure wouldn't as it makes one's ideology look pretty bad right now, if it could be generally characterized as conservative.

Consider putting some pressure on your party to clean up their act and put solid conservatives, on the ballot that might attract some votes!

---for the dress? My guess is: Rudy Guiliani

All levity aside, Texas Representative Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to look into running in '08. He would have my vote for President if I were to vote GOP. If he were nominated with a moderate running mate, like Senator McCain, I would seriously consider him, right along with the few Democratic candidates that I trust. I'm curious to see what you folks think, so here is a bit of an interview in Reason from late January, 2007:

"Paul: Republican Party leaders are acting in a very defensive manner--which they’ve earned! Republicans were too determined to support the president rather than thinking things through and standing up to his requests to expand government internationally or to expand entitlement programs at home. They’ve just gone along here.

Reason: Do you think the losing Congress will liberate more Republicans to revolt against the administration?

Paul: That’s the other Republican politicians’ dilemma: They don’t want to annoy some Republican voters, but at the same time realize that it’s not very popular to have to defend the war. Republicans are starting to remember where they came from and that they don’t have to be supporters of war. I think a year from now there will be a lot more Republican antiwar people around.

Reason: Do you expect the Democrats to do anything substantive to stop the war?

Paul: I think we’ll see more rhetoric than a real desire. We’ll see hiding behind just saying that “we don’t like this, Bush made a mess, but we can’t cut the money because then we won’t be supporting the troops.” I think that’s a cop out."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118086.html

LOL. Ed, If I added Mark, I would have to ask, "which four?"

To be fair, and give a hint, Libby Dole is the only one that's ever looked good in one.

For knowing that Libby, Condi and Rudy were our lovely ladies, KSKD wins a family fun pack, a gift certificate for one hundred pounds of jellybeans and a trip for four to sunny Lind, Washington! Keep listening to FM 105 for your chance to win!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_KJpFKO_Bk
http://www.getlostmagazine.com/dumbass/1999/9907lind/lind.html
http://www.lindwa.com

I meant Brian Regan, Cynthia Nixon and Gillian McCain - http://www.writenet.org/poetschat/gillian_mccain.jpg

I could vote for Rudy Giuliani. I'm a native NY'er who has a ton of respect for how he cleaned up the city and dealt with some very entrenched power interests (unions, etc).

In 2000 or 2004, I would have voted for John McCain, but my respect for him is dwindling based on his sucking up to some of the nutcakes on the extreme fundamentalist right wing.

Bob Barr and other libertarian-types will always get me to listen; I'll respect anyone who is driven by the desire for freedom.

But I'm not a hard-core dem; I've voted for republicans like Gordon Smith, Ron Saxton, and other moderates.

And if Teddy Roosevelt came back and wanted to run, I'd be happy to vote for him.

Oh, and I don't agree with most Republicans.

And I don't get to vote in the primaries unless I decide to change affiliation.

Like I've said in the past, I lean left...but don't identify with either party. My voter's registration card reads independent.

And yes, I'm a tree hugging liberal...and proud of it. Compassion and caring for our fellow man is what makes us human.

"Located in Adams County nestled in the middle of vast wheat fields, Lind is not without charm and history"

Dammit! I would have been the winning caller if it weren't for my stupid rotary phone. And I'm talking about my cell phone...

LMAO. Those buggers keep your face warm with the vaccuum tubes in the transmitter. I always use a pencil eraser. I actually won that way.

My vote is for Mark Hatfield.

The phone's not so bad, and you're right about the warmth of the tubes. That 32" whip antenna can be a PITA though.

COME ON LIBS!!!!!

I don't usually poke folks if I remember the raccoon tail. A 76 ball works great too.

Another real cool feature is that I can hear the rpm of my car engine in the background of every conversation. Better than a tachometer.

**Analog rules!**

Yep.

Hey, am the winning caller! Do I have to come down to the station to pick it up?

Heck no, we will e-mail you the gift certificate, the coupons for your family fun pack and a form to print out and sign for the trip. You'll need an envelope and a stamp. Once we get that, and cut a couple phone promos -- with you saying, "woo-hoo!" and "hazaah!" -- your tickets and check for spending money will be in the mail. We're also gonna send you with a disposable camera to get pictures of the event for our website. We're 21st century around here, just cheaper than Jack Benny. We hope you will always find FM 105 on your dial! Tell your friends!


"Analog Rules!"
Amen to that Brother!




Okay liberals, which one of you left the toilet running? For chrissakes shake the handle!



There seems to be something missing from our reverie and mischief. It just hasn't been the same without Mrs. Merkin tonight. Whistling along in her B-52 of truth, right above the treetops, like a more attractive and sane Slim Pickens, but with deadeye accuracy.

So, who's really smart enough to be called a liberal, and who's a pretender? Here's a couple of tests to take:

World's smallest political quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html. According to that, I'm on the dividing line between "Liberal" and "Libertarian."

More involved quiz: http://www.politopia.com/quiz_index.php3. Interesting questions, though, and this one confirms that I'm a liberal libertarian. Hmmmm. Maybe they're on to something.

This is what I got:

West-You are a Westerner-a civil libertarian-which means that you advocate a diminished role for the government in the personal realm. You are more or less pleased the government's role in the economic realm.

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Liberals are also weak on defense.

Herb

Herb, why do you think liberals like John Kerry had the guts to go and fight for their country while conservatives like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during Vietnam? Who is weak on what?

Andrew

You explain why Mr. Clinton gutted our military and why the vast majority of our military wants a conservative in office.

Herb

Back in the day, everyday conservatives embraced every definition of the word conserve. Those kind of values meant saving for a rainy day. Trees, pennies, clean water, jobs, a secret fishing hole or a nice view from a porch. All of it.

Ike was one of those fellows. A former General with tiny defense budgets, even with the threats of Russia and China. He knew better than to distrust his evidence and intelligence information, so he did not bankrupt the country or plunge us into a nuclear war. He also gave his enemies enough grace to keep what he knew to himself. It was the quiet beginning of detente.

Dwight was the very first President in history -- while the national television cameras followed his every move -- to push his way across a crowded banquet room and warmly welcome Jackie Robinson and all minorities to the feast of America. Balls. Look at your history books. He had huge ones. He helped the Civil Rights Movement gain ground. It wasn't enough for this man to just free Europe from tyranny.

He also gave what many regard to be the very most important Presidential speech of the 20th century. It addressed a future, much of which has come to pass, where unfettered greed would ruin the very foundation of our democracy. He fortold of a world after communism. He warned us about the current foes to free people everywhere, right in our own backyard. Prophetic, brutal and also evidence that he had formidable stones.

The GOP used to have Presidents who accomplished great things and communicated to our soul. Since 1980, it has sent us insiders who are lost in piles of corrupt money and have no concept of the word conserve. They also tend to be dumber than a sack of hammers and have been lowering that standard with each administration.

They have glibly and openly despised the wishes of the many at home and abroad. Each administration has had a different flavor, but they have all continually stirred a pot of paranoia, theology and unconstitutional restriction of our freedoms. They have filled the prisons and emptied the treasury. By many definitions, that is despotic. Somebody had better save this party or it will be a book bound fact of the past, like the Whigs.

I am sure I have said much of this before, but if there are still Republicans who are Eisenhower men, I can see where you are coming from and I respect it without reserve. The party slowly lost sight of the "American Way" after that, and for that fact, I can offer no solace. I hope that the country recognizes the party when the party finally recognizes the country again. Good luck.

Clinton didn't "gut" the military - he followed through on many of Dick Cheney's recommendations for base closures, owing to the fact that the Cold War was over and we no longer needed to fight the disappeared Soviet Union. Clinton had a Republican congress for most of his two terms and they certainly approved all of his actions.

The military likes Republicans because they mistake Republican pro-military-spending policies for acutal support of the troops and strong military decisions. I think you are going to find this attitude changing since Iraq. You'll find that support for Republicans diminishes among the military once they get back and realize how badly the Republicans treat veterans.

Andrew

"Liberals are also weak on defense."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were what exactly?

When your country is the Chicago Cubs of warfare, you should not forget World War Two when the Windy City has not forgotten 1908.

It's already been explained, and well supported here numerous times.

What, you gonna try and say, once again, that it's Clintons fault because the military was not big enough to handle the unjust war on Iraq? If so, can you please explain to us again, how come the costs and effort required were so terribly underestimated?

We are at half a billion dollars and are suffering from incompetence. No matter the size of the military (if it even is that much different), we still would be hosed. The only difference is the death toll on both sides.

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were what exactly?"

How telling. You had to go back OVER HALF A CENTURY. You make my point. Nowdays, those democrats would be republicans.

Herb

Herb, I have to go sift the whole last century to find half a dozen administrations that I like, period.

Littlesongs, I would have to agree with you.

Herb

Herb said>>>>
Nowdays, those democrats would be republicans.

At least they NEVER would have been neo-CONs!!!!

Good. So, we both agree that America grows, improves, changes itself, reinvents the old that works and tosses aside the new that does not, like it always has, until not long ago?

Or do we stop having a democracy?

This is the only point I am trying to make Herb.

Living things, like nations, trees and animals all either grow healthy and mature or they curl up and die. The beauty of democracy is that, in theory, it is a bit like a neotonous creature. Since it never really grows old, in theory, it can live indefinitely. There is a catch though, it has to be fed, kept healthy and have a clean stable environment. Is that too much to ask of our leadership?

Little..
neo-CONs don't understand that and NEVER will! In their selfishness they ONLY want to feed themselves and then NEVER understand why there way never works long term.

I don't think he would run as a republican but was once registered as one, he has plenty of experience of an mayor of a American city and is the longest tenured mayor in the US.

AND he gets out of federal prison just in time to run as a republican in 08'.

"Buddy" Vincent Cianci Jr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Cianci,_Jr

Hey it can't be worse than what we already have can it? Worst case he could be Rudy's running mate.

Hey....Here's an idea; He can run for Mayor of D.C.

Bill, that's a safe bet these days.

I have an idea about Washington. I am willing to bet my Pete Rose rookie card that if we gave actual representation to D.C. and treated it less like the "Green Zone" with cherry blossoms it would not be so corrupt.

The little fish do what the big fish do, they just take smaller bites. A mayor and a couple of token representative-like folks is not enough. We need to make a fifty-first state. They need a real voice in the House. If there were two Senators with half of D.C. as each district -- like the tiniest postage stamp colonies of the original 13 -- things would change in a hurry.

Imagine the Representatives and those two Senators enjoying time with their families every night, shopping for groceries and speaking to the PTA. Involving all the children of the district in civics because it is all laid out in front of them like a buffet. Two folks, in that most holy place, the Senate, speaking out. Going out, activating their constituents and being given a chance to make that historic place into a jewel. Now that would make a difference.

Ask any tourist who has gotten lost trying to find their way around the Capitol and they will tell you that the postcards are all carefully cropped. This nation would be embarrassed if they all knew what sort of rampant poverty exists all around our central government, where people live and die every single day, without a true voice in that government.

"You bash conservatives on this board all day long.

Which 3 Republicans would you actually vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

Herb"

People that bash conservatives do it because conservatives can tend to be out of touch with reality. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor the reality of the wealthy. In either case, this question is lackluster. More than likely, those that bash conservatives aren't going to consider a Republican, period.
Conclusion: This is just Herb trolling. Yawn.

It's way too early to spend so much energy debating votes. Truth is, Oregon's primary is usually not significant because of it's date and number of electors at stake. So most of us will have a vote in the general election in 2 years. Do you realize how radically different the election landscape might be in 2 years?

But wait - I got points earlier. Don't close shop until I get a sticker at least.

"So most of us will have a vote in the general election in 2 years. Do you realize how radically different the election landscape might be in 2 years?"

Andy, it's like watching the Olympic trials. Not for everyone, but for some it is fun to try to pick the winner that gets the gold down the road.

"You had to go back OVER HALF A CENTURY. You make my point. Nowdays, those democrats would be republicans."

How in the HELL would FDR be EVER considered a Republican? I can't think of even the most moderate Republican who would come up with the Alphabet Soup project, or the Army Corps of Engineers, or any of the other MAJOR government-funded and run projects on the government dime, Great Depression or not. Remember that FDR's predecessor, Herbert Hoover, was a Republican and he stuck his head in the sand and waited for the problem to go away.

Nice try.

"How in the **** would FDR be EVER considered a Republican?"

Give me a hard question. FDR would now be considered a Republican because he was pro-defense and wasn't afraid to use overwhelming force against our enemies. Mr. Bush [and JFK during the Bay of Pigs] could learn from FDR.

Herb

Does that make Johnson a Republican, even with his "Great Society" ideaology too?

Johnson is a mixed bag.

But heck, he'd probably be a Republican except for the Great Society squandering. He was just as crooked as Mr. Nixon. Just craftier at hiding it, like his use of the secret White House taping system and his philandering, which Mr. Nixon never did.

Herb

The fact of the matter is this Herb - EVERY President has issues that misalign them with the "core values" of their political party. The two notable exceptions I can think of are Reagan and our current administration. Truman was a hawk, so was Kennedy and Johnson, and Carter started the military buildup that Reagan escalated further, and like Clinton oversaw a botched rescue attempt in the Middle East. (Not pointing blame for either one Andrew, just saying it happened on their watch). Conversely, Ike got us out of Korea and started the Interstate Highway System (a HUGE subsidized program), Nixon started the EPA and negotiated with the Soviets and opened Red China to the United States, and Bush Sr. was socially quite moderate.

I guess what I am saying is, don't sit there and say that FDR would be a modern-day Republican based solely on his war efforts, when every other facet of his views leaned very hard to the left.

"Mr. Bush [and JFK during the Bay of Pigs]"

Herb, I gotta give you credit. You do your homework.

"Through his work with Zapata Off-Shore, Bush Sr. is alleged to have come into contact with Felix Rodriguez, Barry Seal, Porter Goss (who served briefly as CIA Director under Bush Jr.), E. Howard Hunt, around the time of the Bay of Pigs operation. John Loftus writes: "Zapata [Off-Shore] provided commercial supplies for one of [Allen] Dulles’ most notorious operations: the Bay of Pigs invasion."

CIA liaison officer Col. L. (Leroy) Fletcher Prouty alleges in his book, The Secret Team (1973) and on his website, that Zapata Off-Shore provided or was used as cover for two of the ships used in the Bay of Pigs invasion: the Barbara J and Houston. Prouty claims he delivered two ships to an inactive Naval Base near Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for a CIA contact named George Bush, who re-named the boats."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapata_Corporation

Three Presidents, Nixon, Kennedy and Shrub were all involved in this operation in some capacity. You know why it failed? Because secrecy is no way to approach our enemies. We must confront them publicly or we lose face and trust.

Being a huge Orson Welles fan -- even when Orson was huge -- I also have to add that no Republican before or since F.D.R. would ever have approved this program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Theatre_Project
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fedtp/fthome.html

The less time we spend making distinctions between parties and the more time those parties work together on solutions, the better off we all are, no matter which side we started on.

Sutton, I took the quizzes. Thanks for the links. I've always suspected I was who I was, but it was nice to be reassured.

Here are my results:

"CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice."
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

"CENTERVILLE - You would feel most at home in Centerville, Your neighbors include Democratic and Republican party leaders and others who call themselves "moderates" and "centrists." Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems."
http://www.politopia.com/quiz_index.php3

The questions are easy folks, it only takes a coupla minutes and then we can all have a second and third opinion about the "real" you. The bonus is a bunch of great websites that you can explore to see if you are "that" person. I found this one intriguing, so I took a visit:

"Centrists are ideologically flexible. Centrists recognize the complexity of public policy choices and look to many kinds of solutions. Which solution depends on the circumstances, the problem, and the public interest. Ideologues repeat their slogans with little regard to the specific policy problem at hand. Conservatives shout "private good, public bad." Liberals shout "public good, private bad." By contrast, the centrist movement can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often in combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just shout about." -- Centrists.Org

I find or learn something new here everyday. Thanks everyone.

Centrists are the squishy middle.

They try to be everything to everyone and in the process become nothing to no one.

Politics involves quite a bit of passionate beliefs. Centrists are luke-warm. The only inspiration they provide is yawn-inspiring.

Herb

But they reflect what the vast majority of Americans think, feel and believe.

That's why they call it "the center".

That's a matter of degree and perception isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate more extreme views and hold a fair number of them personally. However, at the end of the day, results speak very loudly and it is the centrists that most often get those solid results and progress forward.

IMHO, a sound grasp of the middle ground combined with the ability to get things done, can be very inspiring as we move forward as a nation.

"Centrists are the squishy middle."

Thanks Herb.

Nobody buys a pie for the crust.

I do, however, believe that the crust makes the pie. Bad crust. Bad pie.

Everything works together in the dessert of America.

Bad crust, Bad pie.
Rotten apples, Bad pie.
Bad Crust, Rotten apples, Sour grapes = Government Pie!

Hey Herb, which three Republicans would you vote for? I noticed in your big talk, you haven't committed either. Your side talked big about John Kerry flip-flopping in the last election, I have seen more flip-flopping among these candidates than I have ever seen in a goddamn carp pond. Even Mitt Romney hasn't been able to give a straight answer to the bible thumpers on such things as abortion, plus the so-called christians out there have once again proven what a bunch of bigots they all are saying they won't vote for a mormon. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for Romney either, but if he told me what I wanted to hear I would support him. Hey, I hate Southern Baptists but I supported Clinton because I liked his views. Do you want this liberal to choose three Repubicans, OK Gulliani, McCain, Huckabee.

Now Herb, let's see YOU name three democrats you would support. Are you man enough, I don't think you are.

I'll always vote for the pro-life candidate who is strong on defending our country. That having been said, here are a few democrats who I would consider voting for if they were better on those two issues than their Republican opponent:

Bill Richardson.
Bart Stupak-12 year Michigan Congressman.
James Oberstar-Minnesota Congressman.

Herb

This is why, despite all the bickering, we all have to give Herb a great deal of credit. He does watch your horses fellows, he just has his own concept of a winner.

DT, you summed up why nobody has been asking for second helpings. Crappy Democrats lost in November too, right along with the GOP. We can't simply fire everyone and hire temps, but boy, it sure is tempting isn't it? Nope, we have to choke down every morsel of this lousy pie and hope that the bakers we hire next time didn't drink their way through chef school.

Missing and Edsel, thanks. I am not a kook or a flip-flopper. In my own belief structure, I just see enough logic on both sides to take the best and ignore the rest. Without the two sides, there is less debate, so if, in America, we stay who we are and keep coming up with ideas, through some thoughtful discourse and old fashioned compromise, we all win.

Thanks for giving me credit, Littlesongs.

I would vote for more democrats if the democrat party wasn't so hostile to their very own pro-life candidates. They marginalize candidates who have appeal to a large core of voters.

Apparently pro-life democrats make up 15% of the democrat's voting block. That's more than black people!

Are the democrats on this board willing to cede 15% of their democrat voters to Republicans?
If so, then here's some information on who you're losing:

http://www.democratsforlife.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0505/document.2005-04-22.8728576767
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Life_of_America
http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/pldemsallover.htm

Herb

It's a two-way street. What are the numbers on pro-choice Republicans? I would guess at least as many. So if that was the make-or-break issue for voters, it would be a wash.

You're welcome Herb. You also point out why the Republican Party could actually survive quite well without it as a hot button issue. To expand a bit on what Edsel thoughtfully noted, both parties should be more accepting of candidates who do not toe the line on a host of issues. Both could gain power through the acceptance of such individualism. In America, in our system, more voices will swell the ranks every time. Obviously, an extreme view is simply not going to get votes, but one dischordant issue should not disqualify a person for consideration, and apparently, does not.

Here is a theory. Clinton did not win office by being the best of the Democrats in the bunch, he won by being better than the Republican candidate at being Republican. He took a load of money from companies, helped those companies out and came out of office into the good graces of those companies. That system was established for decades, and unfortunately, it is still how everyone does it now.

Yes, he shared values from both sides. Not all of them, but enough of them that it meshed with his "aw shucks, I aint that smart, I only had a Rhodes Scholarship" persona. He pretended to be dumb when that would sell, and it did, like hotcakes. He managed to check himself, create a center, find out what America wanted to hear and he spooned it back with a cherry on top. One of the best. America was pretty conservative at the time.

Consensus, however, was fleeting and buried under partisan stupidity. The sticks rattled to the ice, the gloves came off and we watched the hockey game disappear and the fighting begin. We all went to the ballot box hoping to find good players, and instead ended up with brawlers that were far less fun to watch than the Charlestown Chiefs.

Small differences are often what divides a party. I have watched it happen on both sides. If the pro-life movement were not a litmus test for the whole Republican Party, but only for the individual constituent to decide on election day, I believe it would be taken with greater seriousness and reasoned debate might occur. As it stands, it simply divides. My two farthings.

(edit)

For the record, I am pro-choice. As a man, I have no business legislating, regulating or debating any decision that pertains to the function of motherhood or any other function exclusive to the biological makeup of a female of our species. I am not a woman. It is not my decision at all. I respectfully disagree with anyone who feels otherwise.

Edselehr makes a point Herb - what about pro-choice Republicans? Would someone who is fiscally conservative, pro-defense, pro-industry and anti-gay rights, but pro-choice, be automatically out to you because of that ONE view if someone who is pro-life but as liberal as they came otherwise was running against him?

I like Mr. Giuliani.

A LOT.

But if a pro-life democrat who wasn't weak on defense ran against him?

I'd vote for the democrat.

God's honest truth.

Herb

Carnac Says:

A: Democrats & Republicans, Unified

Q: Name two parties that will become extinct in 10 years and name the one that will rise from the ashes and take their place.

Add:
It would be interesting to see a team with one party as the presidential candidate with the VP a member of the other party. WHY NOT? If their views each match the duties of that office then they would actually compliment each other. I, IMHO, think the two offices should each be elected seperately.

"End of Line"

DT -- That is very intriguing idea. I like it. Two separate offices decided by primaries rather than a handpicked guy. It would Cheney, Quayle and Shrubproof our future -- like big rattle can full of "loser be gone."

DT - Been there, done that.

Read Article 2, Section 2 (if memory serves) of the Constitution, which had the first-place winner in the Electoral College being the President, and the second-place winner was the VP.

In the 1796 election, Adams (Federalist) won, and the second place winner, Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) became VP. Adams spend most of his time as President fending off backstabbing attacks from within the White House from Jefferson. This was part of the reason why Adams (a proven patriot and defender of republican democracy) was persuaded, despite his better judgement, to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Having the Prez and VP be of different parties ended up being a crappy situation, and it was one of the things about the Constitution that they changed almost immediately. Hence the 12th Amendment giving us today's system, which is by no means perfect but better than what you describe.

Good points!

I was thinking of keeping the two parties separated, but making it a second position. So, it is less arbitrary, less insider, and frankly, less dangerous. Being the second kick to our President is a pretty powerful spot and they should run for it. It has been marginalized lately, I think, to hide dangerous thugs and cunning erosion of our laws.

Qualye seemed like an idiot, perhaps he was, but much of the wetlands protection that he killed under the first Shrub, came home to roost with the second shrub and the hurricanes. He also took big bites out of other environmental laws for his fat cat buddies, all the while pretending to be a George Lindsey character.

The VP has only as much power as the President grants him. Gore was the first "powerful" VP of modern times, almost a co-president to Clinton. Bush clearly went even farther in handing power to the VP. Any subsequent president could strip all that power away in a moment.

The VP's only three constitutional duties are to take over for the President when the Prez is unable to conduct his/her duties, preside over the Senate, and to break ties in the Senate.

Traditionally, the VP slot hasn't been worth much more than, as Vice President Garner said "a bucket of warm spit."

(Well, history recorded it as "spit" but historians are quite sure another word was used.)

Veepers creepers, Edsel, you know your "spit."

"The VP's only three constitutional duties are to take over for the President when the Prez is unable to conduct his/her duties, preside over the Senate, and to break ties in the Senate."

This does give him quite a bit of time to get into mischief, don't you think? At least in the modern context.

He can get into all the mischief that he wants - clearing brush on his ranch, affairs with interns, texting Senate pages...good clean fun.

But you were concerned with the VP slot as being a "pretty powerful spot" which it actually is not. Look at how much power Rove has had in this administration, and that's not even an elected position.

It's always been the President's power to delegate as he wishes. In this administration he just decided to delegate most of it to the VP. The position has no great degree of inherent power.

So, I guess we have to count on the people to make a smart choice. *gulp*

Wasn't there a horse that ran and won office somewhere back in the day?

You're not thinking of Incitatus, are you?

Littlesongs.....I think you are referring to the "Horses Ass" that won in that one....and quite honestly most to date with a few exceptions!

Edsel, no, I thought it was in Texas. A sheriff or something. Still, your ancient horse proves it aint a new idea. :0)

DT - So right.

Edsel, if you wondered what all the confetti and balloons were about, you were our 100th post! If you woke up with a lot of empties around your place, it will be easy to find the culprits. Just shout, "OK Liberals!" You know, they will use any excuse to party. :o)

'Zat right? I've got some weird kind of luck. I was also the 10,000th post to the "Politics and Other Things" board.

Excuse to party? I think it's an excuse to give trophies to everybody for anything they do. You know how those liberals are - everyone's a special person in their own way. "Good for you! Here's a certificate and a hug." Damn commies.