2008 Presidential Candidates

arbilad · Head Chef

2008 Presidential Candidates

SMILE · Veteran Member

Why did I suddenly start to vomit and go into cold sweats after reading that?

The stuff nightmares are made of. Mine anyways.

-- Edited by SMILE at 20:36, 2006-09-05

noel · Veteran Member

Common wisdom in it's early stage is only common, it is never wise.

Randy · Senior Member

Abbreviations used in this post:

MSM = mainstream media

I haven't formed an opinion on who the Democratic or Constitution nominees will be. I think that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney. Although the MSM loves McCain and Guiliani, I think we'll find that the core of the party aren't going to be interested in them. Allen seemed to be doing pretty well until he seemingly made racist comments. Plus, people are getting tired of Bush, and Allen reminds people of Bush. Although if Jeb Bush were running, I'd be thrilled to support him. But he's not. Romney has the political skill to fire up the base and satisfy the mainstream voters. Evangelicals will resent the MSM portraying them as a bunch of hicks that would never vote for a Mormon even if he agreed with all of the political principles they cherish, and prove them wrong. The MSM doesn't really see any difference between Mormons and Evangelicals, but they love to play up what they see as a divisive wedge issue that is going to frankly evaporate when people get a load of Romney. Frist is an uninspiring lightweight. In a straw vote in Tennessee, Frist understandably won (he's from Tennessee) but second place was Mitt Romney by a wide margin. The Republican base will be won over to Romney when they see how he (1) kept gay marriage from spreading from Massachusettes to the rest of the country, (2) fought against making abortion easier than it is (he had pledged to not change his state's abortion laws, which wound up being an annoyance to pro-abortionists) (3) turned Massachussett's tax and revenue problems around, (4) see how he communicates so adeptly (5...) so on. He effectively governed in a "blue state." He isn't afraid to champion unusual ideas. He has a long history of being effective in the things he has done. Good looks and an air of competence never hurt either.

-- Edited by Randy at 23:00, 2006-09-05

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Oh PLEASE let Mitt Romney be the Republican nominee!

Please Please Please Please!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'd vote for Mitt... and not cuz I think those mormons are good eatin'.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'd vote for Ray as a write in candidate. I love his foreign and domestic policy...

"A vote for Ray is a trilobite in every fossil collection." errr, wait, that's not it... that is his Rock Hound Club campaign... Let's see... "Don't know what to say, well here's your answer today: Vote for Ray cuz hey, it is the troglodyte way!"

{sorry hit the wrong button before I finished the post}

No, at this point, I don't know who I would vote for. I'm not a fan of McCain, and he is getting "up there" in years (thinking of the Bob Dole factor). I do not like Juliani, as I feel much of his status is simply a cult of celebrity (do we really know what his views are?). I don't know enough about Romney yet, and the others in the pack on the Republican side I know even less about. Democrats? No way would I ever vote for Billary. No way would I ever vote for Kerry or Gore either. Who else they got? And as for anyone in the little parties, not likely.

I'll have to wait and hear who Glenn Beck says I must vote for...

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 12:01, 2006-09-06

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Cat: I never suspected you as an anarchist?!

--Ray

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

No way would I ever vote for Billary.

I think a great many people are in that camp.

The thing is, didn't the Dems activate their base in 2004? You know, all the people who DETEST Bush got out and voted against him, and he still won. I am hoping against hope, that no matter who the Rep. candidate is, that Hillary will be viewed as the lesser of two evils and will not win.

Which group of people do you think is larger? The group that voted for Bush in 2004, or the group that will never vote for Hillary?

arbilad · Head Chef

I'll have to wait and hear who Glenn Beck says I must vote for...

You know, Cat, he said that if McCain is the Republican candidate, he'll vote third party. I'm not making that up.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

I'll have to wait and hear who Glenn Beck says I must vote for...

You know, Cat, he said that if McCain is the Republican candidate, he'll vote third party. I'm not making that up.

Ah man... I'm gonna need some heavy duty duct tape then!

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

You know, Cat, he said that if McCain is the Republican candidate, he'll vote third party.

Who is Glenn Beck? And is he influencial enough that third party voters could give the election to Hillary?

arbilad · Head Chef

bokbadok wrote:

You know, Cat, he said that if McCain is the Republican candidate, he'll vote third party.

Who is Glenn Beck? And is he influencial enough that third party voters could give the election to Hillary?

Glenn Beck is an LDS radio talk show host. And now he's on CNN as well. He has a major following. He does live shows across the country which usually sell out.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Glenn Beck is kind of like Ray, but with a sarcastic streak and sense of humor in the true definition...

http://www.glennbeck.com

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Glenn Beck is kind of like Ray, but with a sarcastic streak and sense of humor in the true definition...

http://www.glennbeck.com

Ray for President!

Randy · Senior Member

Glenn Beck isn't touting third party candidates as a general rule. But I can see why one would want to vote third party if McCain is the Republican candidate. Although he has many admirable qualities, foremost his fight against pork spending, his efforts to destroy freedom of speech in political contests is too destructive.

This is one issue that pits perhaps a majority of leaders in the Republican and Democratic parties against almost all of the leaders of the minority parties. I want all viewpoints to be heard although I fully understand and accept the dynamic that tends to marginalize third parties. The McCain-Fiengold law strengthens those in power, and hushes those who are not. I thought the Constitution required free speech, but I guess that only applies now to pornographers, not minority political statements, which turns the reason for it on its head.

lineuponline · Veteran Member

Randy stole most my forecasting.

RNC contest: McCain versus Romney. Romney wins because RNC doesn't like McCain.

DNC contest: Dean versus Hillary. Hillary wins because who can ever trust the DNC to choose a decent candidate??

Romney wins in 2008 over Hillary (easy win), and would even win over Dean (close win). Romney also wins 2012 re-election.

PS- Appearances can be very deceiving. Politics is the art of deception.

Tyro · Veteran Member

This thread has been interesting reading. I've heard that lately Mitt Romney is doing very well, but it is too early to tell yet.

I like to think that if the Dems nominate Hillary, then it's an automatic win for the Republicans, but who knows how many might actually vote for "Billary."

I'm still trying to figure out who even might be running and what they stand for, if anything.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Man...I'm still trying to figure out who should run against Janet for AZ Governor (primaries on the 12th). And you want me to think 2 years ahead? Sheesh.

Alright, I really hope Romney gets the nomination. Because McCain just rubs me the wrong way. And I like Romney. I hope Evangelicals will resent the MSM portraying them as a bunch of hicks that would never vote for a Mormon even if he agreed with all of the political principles they cherish, and prove them wrong. this is true, but I wouldn't trust the group entirely to realize that the MSM is jabbing at them. I can just as easliy see them nodding their heads and saying 'Heck yeah!'

Any hint of Edwards resurfacing as a candidate?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Yes. Edwards is campaigning hard. And he is a favorite among the not-Hillary crowd.

Fregramis · Senior Member

Romney vs Edwards...

I'd bet money on it ...if I wasn't LDS and I had some money to wager

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Just caught the last part of Glenn Beck's conversation with Gov. Romney on his show this morning. From what I heard, Romney is saying all the right things. Better yet, it doesn't sound like he is just saying it, but that it is really where he stands.

I didn't know that it was Romney until the end of the conversation when Beck thanked his guest, and all the while I was thinking to myself 'Man, this sounds like an honest man and not just a politician trying to build support.' He even sounded more like the average person and honest and forthright than Senator Hatch did in his presidential campaigns.

I have to honestly say I am now leaning towards his camp if he makes a run for 2008. It was actually very refreshing to hear honest words and not rhetoric.

SMILE · Veteran Member

Any thoughts on Newt Gingerich being a candidate for the Republican side?

I kinda got a different impression while hearing the Glenn Beck interview with Mitt Romney. While I did hear him as being a decent man with a lot of good ideas, who is willing to tackle the tough jobs and not run away, I also heard a politition. I think it may be a side effect of being the Republican Governor of a Democrat State. I am glad he took an absolute stance on several issues, but there are others where he seemed slippery.

Pt314 · Senior Member

It would be great if Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee, however it won't be easy. There is a big chunk of the republican party that absolutely refuses to vote for him solely because he's LDS. It would also put the church into even more political spotlight, and people claiming that we are a bunch of racists and sexists.

arbilad · Head Chef

Mitt Romney was asked on the Glenn Beck program today whether he thought a Mormon could be elected President. He said Yes - but it might or might not be him.
I wouldn't vote for him, and when I get time I'll post my reasons.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Romney is in the dog house with me for trying his position on manditory health insurance ofor Massachusetts residents whether they want it or not. If they cannot afford it, it is to be paid for by tax money, which in unconstituional. His disdain for the Constitution, regardless of whether anyone thinks his plan is a good idea, turns me off him. The Constituion forbids welfare to individuals or groups and his plan is exactly that. Before anybody gives me any guff about this, go read "The Proper Role of Government" by one of our recent prophets.

Randy · Senior Member

No one has ever concluded from my postings on Internet message boards that I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I guess I am in comparison to you.

So now I'll put on my bleeding heart liberal hat.

You requested that we read "The Proper Role of Government" by one of our recent prophets. I did find a political essay by Elder Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve that he wrote in 1968, expressing his opinions. One of those opinions, which he specifically called an opinion, was that social programs could not be suddenly ended, that it would take ten years to get the bulk of them phased out, and twenty years to get them virtually completely phased out. So, he was obviously more interested in having a plan that is a good idea than in strictly enforcing his interpretation of the Constitution, at least for an estimated period of twenty years. He was concerned that suddenly ending those programs would be unacceptably painful for many. So he was obviously willing even in 1968 to moderate his view on what was constitutional in order to protect those who needed protection. Many of those social programs were roughly 20 years old in 1968. Now that another roughly 40 years have passed with little or no decrease in social spending (just the opposite in fact), we're now talking about 60 years' worth of increases. Applying proportions to Elder Benson's estimates, assuming they were close to being right, now it would take 30 years to get the bulk of them phased out, and 60 years to get them virtually completely phased out.

One politician in one political office isn't going to get it done. For the time being, the social system has to be maintained. Now you could say that paying for health insurance is increasing the the burden on tax payers. But is it really? The tax payers are already being stiffed for uninsured medical attention. So are the paying consumers of medical care. And generally speaking the tax payers and the paying consumers of medical care are exactly the same people. Since the uninsured know that they don't have insurance, they often delay getting medical attention until their medical condition has grown enormously, making it much more expensive. Whether you and I like it or not, we're going to keep paying for medical care for the poor. So, if my only choice is between astronomically expensive uninsured medical care and moderately expensive health insurance, choosing the health insurance may make the most sense. I haven't done a study on which method is cheaper, but in principle I don't see that it's necessarily an increase of welfare.

-Randy

-- Edited by Randy at 23:22, 2006-09-09

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Well said, Randy.

This is one of the cases where we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Romney has succeeded in doing this reform in one of the most liberal states in the country. He has avoided a "socialistic" policy of government-paid health care, instead trying to work in the market system. There are lots of voters who want their government to try and find some solution to the lack of health care coverage or to the high costs. What that solution is can be debated, but at least Romney is attempting a policy that does not increase government's influence in our lives or make the entire health care industry a part of the State.

Randy · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

If they cannot afford it, it is to be paid for by tax money, which in unconstituional.

Unconstitutional. Which constitution are we talking about? The US constitution or the constitution of the state of Massachussetts? This is not a Federal program, and so the US Constitution has nothing to say about it. The founding fathers contemplated that the state would have a broad array of powers that were not to be given to the federal government.

Mitt Romney surprised many observers by stating that this program would not work at the national level:

http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=68755

The fact that this program may or may not fit Elder Benson's opinion of the role of state government doesn't make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

Glenn Beck is kind of like Ray, but with a sarcastic streak and sense of humor in the true definition...

http://www.glennbeck.com

My wife and I got hooked on his CNN show a month or so back. This guy makes sense. I enjoy watching him much better than Hannity and Colmes. I really like how he made fun of Captain High Pants and President Tom.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I've never been sarcastic, nor humorous...

--Ray

PS> "GOOOOOO, Romney!!"

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Anyone else seen this site?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Did you read the entry from the 25th? About how a McCain operative was trying to drum up anti-Mormon sentiment. Expect more of that from your Senator, Euph. I hate that guy.

arbilad · Head Chef

Euphrasie wrote:

Anyone else seen this site?

So, Euphrasie, when are you going to vote McCain out of office?

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm working on it. He's not up for reelection this year. Just Senator Kyl.

(I don't like him either. And my opinion has been steadily dropping.)

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

Did you read the entry from the 25th? About how a McCain operative was trying to drum up anti-Mormon sentiment. Expect more of that from your Senator, Euph. I hate that guy.

BTW, Shiz, I generally find hate to be a counterproductive emotion. I strive to not hate politicians, even those that I believe are actively working to deny us our freeoms.
Of course, despite trying to overcome hate, I can't say that I have yet.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Mitt Romney and Condileeza Rice as running mate (or some such mixture

vs

Hillary Clinton and the androgynous neutered candidate she chooses.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Mitt Romney and Condileeza Rice as running mate (or some such mixture

vs

Hillary Clinton and the androgynous neutered candidate she chooses.

That would be the Clinton/Barney Frank ticket.

Randy · Senior Member

Euphrasie wrote:

Anyone else seen this site?

Oh yes, I've been reading that for several weeks now. I love the parts where Evangelicals give Governor Romney standing ovations when they get a chance to hear him speak. When conservative Evangelicals remember the last two presidents they had in office who had a theology similar to theirs (Carter and Clinton) it gets them thinking. As was also pointed out on that site, who would have thought that they would embrace a president who was a divorced actor from Bel-Aire?

Randy · Senior Member

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Mitt Romney and Condileeza Rice as running mate (or some such mixture

vs

Hillary Clinton and the androgynous neutered candidate she chooses.

Jeffery,

I've missed your comments these last few years, good to see your words again.

If it were Mitt and Jeb (or Jeb and Mitt) I'd be so happy I'd probably die on the spot, but that's not going to happen I guess.

-- Edited by Randy at 09:51, 2006-09-27

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

>>>Shiz, I generally find hate to be a counterproductive emotion<<<

Ok, so I don't hate John McCain. Strongly dislike, would only vote for if I absolutely had no other choice, maybe, but don't hate.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Mitt Romney and Condileeza Rice as running mate (or some such mixture

vs

Hillary Clinton and the androgynous neutered candidate she chooses.

That would be the Clinton/Barney Frank ticket.

LOL, I was thinking perhaps Al Gore again as VP running mate to Hillary.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

From Charles Mitchell, on Sept 19 on the EFM site:

So let's put that aside, because any way you slice it, examining Ezra shows that the idea that God can only work through an orthodox leader is clearly not biblical. Our Lord worked through Cyrus and his successors; certainly He could work through a President Romney, too. And should there be a President Romney, it will only be because He allowed it to happen.

Hee hee!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Gooooo Romney!!!

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm not sure I get what they are trying to say with referring to Ezra... but isn't it ironic, that they (the prophesied of latter-day gentiles who say "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.") are comparing themselves to ancient Israel captive in the Persian / Babylonian / Assyrian empire (not sure of the time frame there) with hope coming from a "gentile" Mormon presidential candidate (who is actually a member of the modern House of Israel)...

Of course, it is also pretty ironic that they imply that any person who successfully becomes President of the U.S. is there because God wills it. I'm not sure if that is an indication of belief in predestination and our agency is merely a formality, or if it is an underlying thought pattern that would actually coincide with the fact that, as in Amos, The Lord does nothing save he reveals it to his servants, the prophets... and if it is the latter, I wonder if they have asked themselves where The Lord's prophets are today?

But, I think that as time goes by, word is going to get around that Romney is indeed probably the most reliable, and least tarnished, candidate amongst the field of potential candidates. Sure, he'll be shown to be human, but he won't have the problems of character and integrity that others will have, and there is a pretty good chance that smear tactics used because of his religion will backfire on the candidates who use or passively condone it.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

In effect it is the equivalent of earlier centuries when monarchies asserted the divine right of kings. That "God wills it" is somehow as it should be. The disturbing secondary question of course would be:

"If it is God's will and we therefore should not question it", then does it mean we really should not have a choice in the matter? Not so much on the question of agency, but on the very question of democracy itself. If all things are to be passively accepted as "God's will" then why even have a democracy? It is an argument that some theocratic Islamic states would make in order to ensure a compliant population.

As a western thought proponent I would rather have the convincing done on a more logical level of argument in terms of politics. I would leave faith, and God's assumed will, in the hands of religious leaders (or prophets), and allow the logic (or illogic) of politics to convince me of who is best. I have little faith in politics and great faith in God, I choose not to mix up the two.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

If Romney were president, wouldn't that prove the church was true? --Ray

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

In effect it is the equivalent of earlier centuries when monarchies asserted the divine right of kings. That "God wills it" is somehow as it should be. The disturbing secondary question of course would be:

Very true and it wasn't just the monarchs. The belief that your station in life was determined by God was a prevelent idea believed by the aristocracy and the poor alike. In the British army the rank of officer was purchased not earned as a result of education and performance. In the rare case a poor enlisted sap got promoted to be an officer for gallantry, often he was relegated to quartermaster duties, not so much because his fellow officers wouldn't accept him but because even the enlisted guys wouldn't follow him. They wanted their officers to come from privilege as if they were touched or set apart by God while they were damned (we'll see if that gets through the filter). The french under Napoleon referred to English soldiers as the goddams or those who were punished or damned by God, unable to move beyond or improve their situation. Enlistments in the British army were most often for life and were a source of escape from starvation or prison.

Even in more enlightened, educated times and places you can still see this. There is still lingering problems with the caste system in India today.

Alright, now I'm done with the history lesson.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

If Romney were president, wouldn't that prove the church was true? --Ray

Yea, sure Ray, whatever works for you!

Jason

Tyro · Veteran Member

Jeffery! How great to see you here!

rayb, you crack me up!