*official* 2008 us election thread

[Gordon Comstock]

as I've said before, I wouldn't mind Giuliani as president at all. frankly, he might be the candidate that most mirrors my own political beliefs.

however, I am so disgusted by the Republicans and I'm willing to admit that an Obama presidency would be better for the country as a whole than a Giuliani presidency economically.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

as I've said before, I wouldn't mind Giuliani as president at all. frankly, he might be the candidate that most mirrors my own political beliefs.

however, I am so disgusted by the Republicans and I'm willing to admit that an Obama presidency would be better for the country as a whole than a Giuliani presidency economically.

as I stated in that bill kristol post, rudy claims to be pro-choice but has promised multiple times during fundraisers to appoint only "constructionist" judges to the sc. this would mean the end of roe v. wade.

and while I'm not in favor of abortion litmus tests, the fact that we're almost certainly going to have 2 judges retiring over the next term or two makes judicial appointments extremely important and rud's stance so troubling.

in other areas I have less of a problem with him.

[Oggy73]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

the problem is that I thought giuliani would have real troubles winning a primary, but he's absolutely sailing so far. if the social conservatives and evangelicals manage to do what no one's thinks they can do and galvanize behind rudy, he's in easily...

Compared to the Dems, the Republican candidacy has been very sluggish and low-profile thus far. If (surely when?) it starts getting dirtier Giuliani might have more trouble, particularly regarding his women.

But I'm surprised by the easy ride he's had so far, too.

[Gordon Comstock]

quite the corrupt bargain he's made then.

[gunnerfan]

Sorry, I lived through 8 years of Giuliani as mayor. Can't see him getting elected as president. Wouldn't want to, either - he thinks he can deal with al Quaeda the same way he dealt with the squeegee men.

Don't get me wrong - he's an excellent speaker and he'd be a great campaigner, at least as long as he can keep things scripted. It's when the unscripted stuff comes along that he starts to unravel (and you can tell they're getting to him when he starts blinking rapidly).

[Oggy73]

Enter the mighty Bill...

"Bill Clinton will join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at a commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala., on Sunday, bringing his star power and popularity among African Americans to a weekend of events that had been shaping up as a showcase for the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.

It will be the former president's first major public appearance with his wife since she launched her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last month.

Obama (D-Ill.) announced several weeks ago that he would deliver the keynote speech at a service honoring the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, joining Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and other veterans of the civil rights movement in marking the historic event. Obama has gained significantly among black voters in recent months, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey, jeopardizing Clinton's early lead in the Democratic primary field.

Reluctant to give any ground to Obama even at this stage of the campaign, Clinton (N.Y.) decided early last week that she, too, would go to Selma this weekend. She arranged a simultaneous appearance at a church just steps away from the one where Obama will speak Sunday morning, and she agreed to accept a civil rights award on behalf of her husband.

Late yesterday, after organizers initially said that the former president had not committed to attend, the Clinton campaign announced that he would be making the trip after all."

Bill could be a fairly potent weapon in the struggle for black votes; it'll be intertesting to see what effect he can have. However, Hillary needs to be careful not to be identified too much as Mrs. Bill Clinton. And chasing Obama around the country, one step behind, doesn't exactly send a great message, either.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by finneys13:

'Mon

I imagine any newly elected President will close Gitmo as soon as possbile, from whatever party. I would be correct there, wouldn't I?

After the election, could the new President encourage charges to be pressed against Bush and Cheney, or is there an amnesty for the period when a President/VP was in office? I know it wouldn't happen as it would rip apart the country, etc., unless something really bad comes up.

I wouldn't bet that Gitmo is destined for the scrap heap. Certainly a Democrat would be under pressure to close it, and they probably would, with the accompanying ticker tape parade. But this is merely one of the infinite number of smeg ups that the next President will be under pressure to fix, and the next person could probably spend their first year (or more) in office simply trying to undue damaging policies left over from Bush. This could quickly get exhausting, because the new person will have their own agenda, and won't want to simply be the person who undid Bush's mess. Add to that the fact that Gitmo is a kind of nightmare -- what do you do with these people?? -- and I can see it getting shunted down the to do list until, shock and horror, it's still quietly moving along on auto pilot two years into the new administration.

Of course, that's if a Dem wins. If a Republican wins, there's still a decent chance that they'll keep it going. None of the Republican candidates has really taken on a 'I'll be the opposite of Bush" campaign persona. Or, more in Washington style, there will be a big announcement about how Gitmo's going to be changed, and we'll all assume it's been fixed. Then two years later, someone will finally take a closer look and say, "Hey, it's still like it was."

Oh, and as tasty as that might be, it would be almost unthinkable for any int'l criminal body to get Bush/Cheney, etc. extradicted. Even a soft, liberal Dem President is unlikely to want to set a precedent whereby their actions can be subject to criminal prosecution from other states. Presidents don't let any int'l organizations, even the UN, have a veto over whatever policy they deem to be in the US interest.

[finneys13]

We can only hope Bush finds himself in Belgium one day and he is arrested for breaking International Law.

[Splendid]

Originally posted by finneys13:

We can only hope Bush finds himself in Belgium one day and he is arrested for breaking International Law.

That is, if you're not fond of Belgium.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by finneys13:

We can only hope Bush finds himself in Belgium one day and he is arrested for breaking International Law.

I'm not sure Bush could find Belgium, even on one of his better days.

[finneys13]

Originally posted by Splendid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by finneys13:

We can only hope Bush finds himself in Belgium one day and he is arrested for breaking International Law.

That is, if you're not fond of Belgium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kill two birds with one stone

Most boring country I have ever been in

[bflaff]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Sorry, I lived through 8 years of Giuliani as mayor. Can't see him getting elected as president. Wouldn't want to, either - he thinks he can deal with al Quaeda the same way he dealt with the squeegee men.

Don't get me wrong - he's an excellent speaker and he'd be a great campaigner, at least as long as he can keep things scripted. It's when the unscripted stuff comes along that he starts to unravel (and you can tell they're getting to him when he starts blinking rapidly).

Just to be counterpoint. I lived through 2/3 of Giuliani time too, and thought he was great, although boom time on Wall Street helped a great deal. But try living somewhere else (Philly?) to see what a mediocre mayor can do to a big city. Rudi took a huge mess of a city and made it work. The 2001 mayoral elections showed that New Yorkers had seen the light. Given the choice between politics as usual Dems and a pro-business, socially liberal Republican, the overwhelmingly Democratic city (wisely) went for Bloomberg. If people had serious regrets about Giuliani time, Bloomberg probably doesn't have a prayer.

Of course, now that Rudi's shed the mayor of NY persona in favor of the Onward Christian Soldier Bush wannabe, all that good feeling has dissolved. I have no time for him anymore.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Oggy73:

Bill could be a fairly potent weapon in the struggle for black votes; it'll be intertesting to see what effect he can have.

You're getting the two best Democratic speakers together in one place? That crowd's in for a treat.

[Daaaaave]

most new yorkers I know secretly despise rudy. sure he cleaned up the city, but it's boring, sterile and even more prohibitively expensive now.

bourdain said it best when he was in ny, ny in vegas and felt uneasy, not because he was in a vegas approximation of his home, but because his home was seeming more and more like vegas.

[gunnerfan]

Actually, Daaaave, I think Giuliani did some good things in the city. The best was probably hiring Bill Bratton as police commissioner, because the drop in crime fueled most of the other good things that happened. Of course, once Bratton got the credit for his good work, Rudy forced him out.

My own experience with his Rudy-ness was first-hand: I was involved in no fewer than eight different clashes with his administration, and won on six of them, which I consider to be a pretty good track record. Most of them involved services for people with disabilities, but there were other issues as well.

Most people forget just how feckless Rudy was throughout his second term. The only positive things he accomplished were continuations of what had begun in his first term - such as keeping crime down. His major initiatives went nowhere, and at one point he tried to launch a campaign to increase civility - truly sidesplitting considering he liked to dismiss critics as "morons". At the same time, an inordinate amount of attention was devoted to his crumbling marriage (his second, if you're counting them as they go by), including his public announcement of his intention to file for a divorce, reportedly made before he had actually informed his wife. And who can forget the time he sent his divorce lawyer out to the press to denounce his wife as a bad mother...on Mother's Day? Shortly after that, I recall a divorce lawyer appearing on a local TV News station, saying that there was a list of 13 things that divorcing parents should not do (in order to make things easier for their kids), and the Giulianis had already done 12 of them.

He had come to office as a champion of term limits, but then signed on to two separate efforts to extend his time in office - one as part of a ballot initiative that would have included the members of the City Council, and one (quickly aborted) that would have given him a special dispensation in light of 9/11.

His reputation rebounded thanks to the photo-ops of 9/11, and he has been living off that ever since ("America's Mayor", and all that). This isn't surprising. Anyone who was in the city that day remembers how disorienting everything felt, and Giuliani's projected image as the guy in charge was comforting to many. But it was exactly that - an image. He did little of any real consequence, except possibly keep his emergency management team at 7 WTC so long that they barely made it out in time. It was the command structures for the police and fire departments that did the heavy lifting, and in fact their jobs turned out to have been made harder by certain cost-cutting measures that had been undertaken (mostly affecting emergency communications).

In 2000, Giuliani started out planning to oppose Hilary Clinton in her initial run for the Senate. He dropped out of the race when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but there were many who thought that his campaign had already run into serious trouble, and that the disease gave him a plausible out from a campaign gone bad.

There was speculation in 2004 that Rudy would challenge Senator Chuck Schumer, but he didn't. There was speculation in 2006 that he would challenge either Eliot Spitzer for Governor or Hilary Clinton for the senate, but he didn't - presumably because he stood a very poor chance to win either race, and a loss would doom his future electoral plans. Yet the very fact that he felt he had to shy away from those three races speaks volumes about his ultimate electability.

Given the strength that the Christian right has in the Republican party, I can't see him winning the nomination. Despite his recent back-tracking (noted by Daaaaave above), he is widely regarded as being pro-abortion. He has also often portrayed himself as pro-gay-rights (if not gay marriage). Of course, the party may reject the Christian right, and nominate him anyway. And in that case, the far right, generally, will likely sit out the election, allowing a Democrat to win and hoping for a fatter target in 2012.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

most new yorkers I know secretly despise rudy. sure he cleaned up the city, but it's boring, sterile and even more prohibitively expensive now.

bourdain said it best when he was in ny, ny in vegas and felt uneasy, not because he was in a vegas approximation of his home, but because his home was seeming more and more like vegas.

Bourdain's exposure to a-holes on expense account may be dangerously high. Ditto for Manhattan. The concept of trendy, as a value and anspiration, must die.

[Daaaaave]

I forgot to add that rudy's consulting firm was paid millions by the fox government to combat crime in mexico city. rudy rook the money, farmed out the work, and the results were mixed at best.

mexicans have some serious beef with rudy and this may affect his polling in the west, although I've seen no crosstabs of latino voters to prove it.

it also explains his inclusion in this video

http://jasonarcherpaulbeck.com/hit_me.html

by a band I believe only me, sebs and pmlf has heard of but is huge in mexico.

[Daaaaave]

smfh

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/02/coulter-cpac-i...e-the-word-‘******’/

link will be censored, so here's the money shot quote for ann coulter

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘******' – so... Kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."

[bflaff]

Giuliani at the same conference:

Giuliani did eventually get around to talking about terrorism, the issue that has propelled him to the top of the Republican presidential field. Once on topic, he sounded like a dutiful follower of the Bush/Rove playbook, denouncing Democrats for being on the defensive before 9/11 and for previous efforts to treat terrorists like criminals. Giuliani lavished praise on the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance programs that illegally spy on American citizens. Giuliani went so far as to draw parallels between his lawful use of electronic surveillance on the Gambino crime family as a prosecutor and the Bush administration's current unlawful surveillance and data mining of American citizens suspected of no crime whatsoever.

[Tanman007]

Reading in the online version of NY times that the key Christian conservative groups don't have a preferred candidate (which makes me very happy) , and especially don't like Rudy and Mckain. So who will these people nominate?

[K-uglen]

Originally posted by Tanman007:

Reading in the online version of NY times that the key Christian conservative groups don't have a preferred candidate (which makes me very happy) , and especially don't like Rudy and Mckain. So who will these people nominate?

Isn't Brownback their most obvious choice if going on ideology alone?

[Splendid]

Originally posted by K-uglen:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tanman007:

Reading in the online version of NY times that the key Christian conservative groups don't have a preferred candidate (which makes me very happy) , and especially don't like Rudy and Mckain. So who will these people nominate?

Isn't Brownback their most obvious choice if going on ideology alone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Huckabee more likely, but it's really between McCain and Giuliani.

[Jason the Yank]

Time Magazine has a new national presidential poll out that includes regional breakdowns. Now, I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to national polls conducted this early in a race, but there's some interesting tidbits here.

While Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 36-24% nationally, she soars in the Northeast (42-20) and the South (42-19). But she lags in the Midwest (down 29-31) and the West (29-29). That Midwest result isn't a surprise - given the strength of Obama in Illinois - but in the West?

I wonder why Obama does well in the West. Of course, it may be very simple: If he's perceived as a straight-talking, truth-telling kinda guy... well, that's the Western style. We'll see if it holds up.

The poll includes Al Gore, who polls nationally at 13%. John Edwards comes in at 11%, but only 2% in the Northeast - and 15% in the Midwest, 12% in the South, and 11% in the West. Bill Richardson is fifth at 3%, with a slightly higher 4% in the West.

On the Republican side, it's Giuliani (38%), McCain (24%), Gingrich (12%), and Romney (7%). No surprise - McCain and Romney both perform slightly better in the West (McCain 27%, Romney 11%)

http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2007/03/regional_poll_i.html

[Kizzak]

Results from the straw-poll at CPAC.

Too Perfect Hair came in first with 21%

New York Dandy came in second with 17%

Brownback got 15%

Newt got 14%

Walnuts tried to show his faux-independence by skipping the event (and then trying to weasel into having a reception there at the last minute) and got 12%.

For reference, George Allen got 22% of the vote last year at the same event. Of course his macaca-moment and other general craziness in the senate race killed his chances.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/03/conservatives.ap/index.html

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

Too Perfect Hair came in first with 21%

I remember how Molly Ivins would refer to Texas governor Rick Perry as Governor Good Hair.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

Too Perfect Hair came in first with 21%

I remember how Molly Ivins would refer to Texas governor Rick Perry as Governor Good Hair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This story is even better than that. If you didn't see the thing about his campaign strategy powerpoint leaking, one of his personal negatives identified in the strategy document was that his hair was "too perfect".

I guess the implication was opponents could belittle him as a metrosexual in the primary, but still, what a comment.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oggy73:

Bill could be a fairly potent weapon in the struggle for black votes; it'll be intertesting to see what effect he can have.

You're getting the two best Democratic speakers (Bill Clinton and Obama) together in one place? That crowd's in for a treat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted, giving a civil rights commemorative speech in Selma is like giving a Memorial Day speech in Arlington -- it's hard to do a bad job because what you are commemorating is so noble -- but I saw most of Obama's speech, and it was very, very good. Transcript

Hillary's is here. It was a bit more scattershot, and her stump speech bits were shoe-horned in a little more clumsily, but tbf, Obama and Hillary both got the 'Mmm-hmms', 'Amens' and other assorted commentary that get speeches in black churches cooking so well. Hill's transcript

Bill didn't speak.

[Daaaaave]

obama's selma speech was an absolute home run.

[Gordon Comstock]

Obama will win.

he's the type of visionary that we need to rehabilitate our nation's faith in politics.

[Daaaaave]

newest poll. one of rasmussen's robo polls which are usually more accurate than most

Sen. Hillary Clinton (34%) (-3%)

Sen. Barack Obama (26%) (0%)

Sen. John Edwards (15%) (2%)

al gore not listed as a candidate in the poll.

obama leading clinton among male voters, clinton with a 14 point lead among women.

[finneys13]

Always said women shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's their smaller brains you know.

[Daaaaave]

obama will go on oprah, everyone will have a good cry and that lead will be halved overnight.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Oggy73:

Enter the mighty Bill...

"Bill Clinton will join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at a commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala., on Sunday, bringing his star power and popularity among African Americans to a weekend of events that had been shaping up as a showcase for the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.

It will be the former president's first major public appearance with his wife since she launched her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last month.

Obama (D-Ill.) announced several weeks ago that he would deliver the keynote speech at a service honoring the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, joining Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and other veterans of the civil rights movement in marking the historic event. Obama has gained significantly among black voters in recent months, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey, jeopardizing Clinton's early lead in the Democratic primary field.

Reluctant to give any ground to Obama even at this stage of the campaign, Clinton (N.Y.) decided early last week that she, too, would go to Selma this weekend. She arranged a simultaneous appearance at a church just steps away from the one where Obama will speak Sunday morning, and she agreed to accept a civil rights award on behalf of her husband.

Late yesterday, after organizers initially said that the former president had not committed to attend, the Clinton campaign announced that he would be making the trip after all."

Bill could be a fairly potent weapon in the struggle for black votes; it'll be intertesting to see what effect he can have. However, Hillary needs to be careful not to be identified too much as Mrs. Bill Clinton. And chasing Obama around the country, one step behind, doesn't exactly send a great message, either.

btw, bill did not show up to the speech in selma, although clinton took pains to give him a shout out at the beginning of her speech (which was self-defeating because she didn't get the benefit of his popularity but still looked under his shadow for namedropping to get easy applause).

[super_imps]

What would Bill's role in a Hillary White House be? It's pretty much uncharterd territory I know, but does anyone have any idea what he'd be doing?

[Daaaaave]

insert intern joke here?

[super_imps]

I thought better of you Daaaaave.

[exchampionsfan]

I should think that Bill would fulfill the role of the First Lady but concentrating on minorities rather than women?

[finneys13]

Or just focus on the women like when he was in office?

[Daaaaave]

my guess is that bill would be hands off in the extreme and continue on in his work with bush I. he would still have a voice in the war room, but very little publicly.

[Kizzak]

Just found out Gore is speaking at the Impact series of lectures at GT this year (April 18), they expect it to be in huge demand - because this is the first time you have to pre-register to show up for one of the events as a student.

Going to see it just because I know the College Republicans are going to **** out in utterly amazing fashion \o/

[finneys13]

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has a blood clot in his leg and is being treated with blood-thinning medication, his office has said.

He experienced discomfort in his lower left leg on Monday morning and had medical tests. He returned to work after the examination.

He is to be treated with blood-thinning medication for several months.

Mr Cheney, 66, has a history of cardiac problems. He has suffered four heart attacks and has a pacemaker.

He had quadruple bypass surgery in 1988 after his third heart attack.

He also had an operation to remove blood clots in his knees in 2005.

DICK CHENEY'S HEALTH

Four heart attacks between 1978 and 2000

Quadruple bypass surgery in 1988

Fitted for pacemaker to regulate heartbeat in 2001

Operation to remove blood clots in 2005

Mr Cheney recently returned to Washington after long flights to Japan, Australia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Blood clots - or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) - can be associated with long-distance flying because it leads to inactivity and dehydration.

Clots themselves are not life-threatening but can be dangerous if they become wedged in the lungs or other organs, which can in severe cases be fatal.

So close

[K-uglen]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

Just found out Gore is speaking at the Impact series of lectures at GT this year (April 18), they expect it to be in huge demand - because this is the first time you have to pre-register to show up for one of the events as a student.

Going to see it just because I know the College Republicans are going to **** out in utterly amazing fashion \o/

Gore is due to speak for the second time in months here in Denmark. I guess he likes what we (used to) do for the environment here. He even accepted an honorary doctor's degree from University of Aalborg.

[Jongi]

Very interesting thread this

[K-uglen]

There was a hilarious piece on CNN not too long ago, about Giuliani's son not supporting him on the campaign trail "because he wanted to focus on his golf" (he plays for his college's golf team apparently)

[Jongi]

I am having difficulties grasping the difference between a primary and caucus. Is it the case that the caucus is not open to the general public?

[K-uglen]

Originally posted by Jongi:

I am having difficulties grasping the difference between a primary and caucus. Is it the case that the caucus is not open to the general public?

As I've understood it, yes. It's groups of party members who, among other things, nominate the presidential candidate.

I'm pretty sure primaries can be open to everyone as well as closed and for voters registered with the party in question only.

New Hampshire's primary is an open primary IIRC, thus a place where a candidate's sway outside the party base can be seen tested.

[Sean M]

Has any party ever tried to vote in the other's primary, in order to get a weaker candidate?

Such as if the vote was really close, and there was a candidate they would much prefer to face. But I imagine it would be hard to organise.

[gunnerfan]

The Giuliani personal-life feeding frenzy has begun, and the talking heads were all over it last night. Predictably, he's taking the "let's give everyone their privacy" tack, but it won't work. Too much material there.

I also noticed (sorry, been away a few days) a reference above to Giuliani supporting electronic surveillance, et al. This is not surprising, as his assaults on First Amendment rights were well documented during his time as mayor. Giuliani believes in freedom of expression of all viewpoints that agree with his own. I recall one episode when he was mayor, and the police commissioner denied a permit to a group that wanted to protest Giuliani's welfare policies in City Hall Park. The group went to court and forced the permit to be issued, and when the protest was held, there were police sharpshooters poised on the roof of city hall and other buildings in the area.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Sean M:

Has any party ever tried to vote in the other's primary, in order to get a weaker candidate?

Such as if the vote was really close, and there was a candidate they would much prefer to face. But I imagine it would be hard to organise.

as a party, no. I know some people who are registered republican so they can vote in republican primaries though.

[K-uglen]

Originally posted by Sean M:

Has any party ever tried to vote in the other's primary, in order to get a weaker candidate?

Such as if the vote was really close, and there was a candidate they would much prefer to face. But I imagine it would be hard to organise.

I seem to remember reading something about a big Republican drive to get Lamont nominated as the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut last year, but I might be mistaking that with the Republicans backing Lieberman's campaign as an independent after Lamont did indeed win the nomination.