Originally Posted By jonvn "Obama's wife ain't bad looking." I haven't seen her, but he's fading out now anyway. Whatever happened to Jesse Ventura? Seems that he didn't really impress anyone in his job. No one would cooperate with him or something.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No one would cooperate with him or something.>> He actually was far better than I expected. He was smart enough to get good people working for him and let them call the shots. Ventura's staff kind of served as "Jesse's Brain". He ended up being ineffective because although his staff had good ideas, he could get no support in the legislature because he had no base. The Democrats didn't like him and the Republicans didn't like him. Whenever people think they want an Independent Party candidate for President, they should think about the problems that would be created by having a President with no following in Congress. Talk about gridlock!! Unfortunately since leaving the governorship Jesse has fallen on hard times. He hangs out with other street people in downtown Minneapolis' Elliot Park. He tries to eek out a meager existence selling autographed "Jesse the Body" T-shirts from his wrestling glory days. It is truly a sad, sad end for a man who once met with the President. Here is a photo of how he looks now: <a href="http://lonestarpundit.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/jesseventura_kinkyfriedman_01.jpg" target="_blank">http://lonestarpundit.files.wo rdpress.com/2006/09/jesseventura_kinkyfriedman_01.jpg</a> The photo of him is real. My final paragraph about him is not. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If any of today's candidates had that free wheeling spirit I would be the first to line up behind him/her.> Actually, there are a few who do. I think Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul say pretty much exactly what they think. They're all considered "fringe," Of course. It seems like the closer you're considered to "viable," the more cautious you get. The one front or semi-frontrunner I give some credit to on one level is Edwards. He's been talking about poverty consistently for a couple of years, and that's not generally considered a "winning message." In fact, it's usually considered a turn-off to voters. I'm not entirely sure about him, but I give him props for that. This is an interesting question. So far we have no real excitement for any of them!
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "I would have done Hillary..." Only stepping outside into a 20 below zero night would make me shudder so intensely as I did upon reading that.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I agree. The fringe canidates take provocative positions and that pretty much makes them fringe. The "viable" canidates take bland, no position postitions and that helps keep them viable.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Rather sad, isn't it to think that years from now, when we're old and gray and discussing the glory days of politics, we'll be saying things like "There's just nobody out there anymore like Reagan, or Clinton... now those were viable men for you!"
Originally Posted By ecdc Dabob, I agree about Edwards. I'm curious, what do you think about Michael Bloomberg? Good mayor? Would he make a good President? I just saw him on Dan Rather Reports and he was definitely interesting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Bloomberg has been a good mayor. Not perfect, but good. I voted for him over the Democrat (yes, I do do that if warranted). He's righted the budget, eliminated the huge deficit Rudy left him, and even made some dents in tackling the huge school bureaucracy. He's definitely better than Rudy, and might even make a good president. On the down side he has next to no foreign policy experience, and he was a little lax to say the least in making sure civil liberties were enjoyed during the GOP convention here in 2004 (we had people who were just NEAR a protest arrested and held for 24 hours or more). So he ain't perfect, but he's been a pretty good mayor.
Originally Posted By ecdc Interesting, thanks for responding. I used to not think foreign policy experience was all that important so long as you surrounded yourself with people who know something about it. How wrong I was...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Yes. It is. I see no one who will do any better a job at it running right now, and a few, such as Obama, who will do markedly worse. It appears others are starting to realize this too, and he's starting to fade in the polls, and is pulling back a bit on his campaign.< exactly what I stated here months ago - being from Illinois have had a close look at Obama -- nothing there
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm actually excited about the prospect of being able to vote for Hillary Clinton. But of course you already knew that... ;-) < lighting a few more candles at the Clinton Shrine in the family room eh ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 If I had to push a button for one person today I guess it would be ROmney - with Hillary as my second choice ( yes I know they are different parties - but party seems to matter little once you get away from the fringes in each anyway) - I am not thrilled with either and keep waiting for someone to separate themselves. I would like one of the front runners to listen to what Kucinish has to say about addressing the off shoring of the future of America - ( but little else he has to say) -- I know as of now I will either be voting for Romney or Hillary ( RT is stunned right now) - whichever moves further forward in all issues that are important to me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<lighting a few more candles at the Clinton Shrine in the family room eh ?>> You bet. In fact my wife and I went to the State Fair today and we stopped by the Democrat's booth. We both bought "Hillary Clinton - President '08" campaign buttons and wore them proudly all day. <<I know as of now I will either be voting for Romney or Hillary ( RT is stunned right now) - whichever moves further forward in all issues that are important to me.>> Have you seen Hillary's recent comments about health care? She is making more sense than anyone else out there, and is NOT proposing classic Democratic solutions. I guess she learned her lesson last time around, huh?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You bet. In fact my wife and I went to the State Fair today and we stopped by the Democrat's booth. We both bought "Hillary Clinton - President '08" campaign buttons and wore them proudly all day.< don't wear them around Ted Nugent ! <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1187963465" target="_blank">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i =757_1187963465</a> video link _ caution contains strong language from Nugent concert! Heard about it on the news this AM. I am sure it is all over utube also today
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <and is NOT proposing classic Democratic solutions.< because once she figures out who she really is ( she grew up a midwestern conservative ( before that word and liberal both became symbols for things they really were not meant to be ) - she gets it that the middle - or close to it politically is where she can find the largest audience and the victory she wants.I watched a show on CNN the other night about God's Warriors ( or a name close to that) - and I sure don't want that type of politics any more than I want far left -- doesn't make me right but I think the largest audience is still somewhere around the middle of the spectrum....
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> He [Romney] seems to have changed an awful lot of his positions in order to appeal to the "base" in the primaries. The operative word here being "seems." And that's the way the press wants it to seem. But how many positions has he changed? I can count them on one finger: 1. He went from being hands-off on abortion rights (keep the government out of it) to believing that Roe vs. Wade is bad law and states should decide for themselves. That in itself isn't a huge shift. It's the ONLY major issue Romney's critics can claim Romney changed, and it wasn't a flip-flop. It was a flip. Period. The gay marriage thing? He favored gay rights, and still does ... right to work, live, be free from persecution and all that. But he doesn't favor gay marriage, and never has. It's probably because marriage isn't a right. So there's no flip there. The flip-flop thing is an invention by critics and opponents who are having a tough time making the mud stick, because Romney's record of achievement and conduct is squeaky-clean. No surprise ... I'm for Romney. No one else's experience and record of leadership success holds a candle to his. This will become more apparent as time goes on, and the other candidates' resumes are going to look absolutely ridiculous in comparison. Another HUGE plus for Romney is his wife. Potential First Ladies actually figure quite high in voter's decisions as the election draws closer. Most people were in agreement that John Kerry's wife definitely hurt his campaign. A spouse doesn't have to be demure and mousy, but she can't be irritating or crabby. Nearly every presidential spouse or marriage in the 2008 race is a big question mark, except for Ann Romney. She wins unanimous admiration and praise from everyone who knows her. Elizabeth Edwards might have had the same admiration, but she's been a bit whiny and catty lately, and that impresses no one. Mrs. Romney has precisely the kind of strength, dignity and restraint that people are comfortable with. I predict the eventual nominees will be Clinton and Romney, and I think Romney will win. Clinton has many ideological fans and liberal admirers, but she lacks executive experience in a big way, is not a leader with new ideas and bold ideals, is too reserved and guarded, and distanced from real life, and lacks the optimism that people expect from the president. Then there's Clinton fatigue. Many, many voters (including Democrats) are wanting someone besides a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the first time in 20 years. I can't say that I blame them.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Then there's Clinton fatigue. Many, many voters (including Democrats) are wanting someone besides a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the first time in 20 years. I can't say that I blame them.>> Since I've been able to vote in 1992 there's been a Clinton or Bush on the ballot. Maybe what this country needs the most is for both to be out the spotlight. It's going to be easy for one but not so the other.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The operative word here being "seems." And that's the way the press wants it to seem. But how many positions has he changed? I can count them on one finger: 1. He went from being hands-off on abortion rights (keep the government out of it) to believing that Roe vs. Wade is bad law and states should decide for themselves. That in itself isn't a huge shift. It's the ONLY major issue Romney's critics can claim Romney changed, and it wasn't a flip-flop. It was a flip.<< Nice try, but let's go to the film, shall we? (BTW, someone has got to tell these candidates, not just Romney, about the invention of videotape.) In 1994 Mitt Romney stated that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope [abortion] would be safe and legal. . . . Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that." But as a Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney wavered on that and has stated he believes abortion should be illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, or harm to the mother. Regarding stem-cells, in 2002, Mitt Romney insisted he was for federal funding of stem-cell research and, at one campaign stop while running for Governor of Massachusetts, said he would lobby President Bush to change his position and allow the federal funding he had previously denied. As a Presidential candidate, however, Romney says he is now opposed to federal funding for stem-cells and has moved much closer to the religious right in his public stance. Romney also became fodder for late night talk show comedians after he insisted he had been a hunter all his life, even though it was later revealed he had only gone a handful of times. He joined the National Rifle Association in August 2006, in the run-up to his Presidential campaign. But in his 1994 run for the U.S. senate against Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney backed gun control measures strongly opposed by the NRA and vocally endorsed restrictions on gun ownership. It would also seem Mitt Romney has shifted his position on gay rights to appeal to religious conservatives. In 1994, again as part of his campaign to unseat Ted Kennedy, Romney declared "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," and said he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Kennedy, a symbol of East coast liberalism. He also called same-sex civil unions a "fair, reasonable way to address [the needs of gays]." But now Mitt Romney has become stridently opposed to gay marriage and Civil Unions, and called the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage "a blow to the family." He now supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Sources: "Clarity Sought on Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, July 3, 2005; "A Challenge to Roe?" The Washington Post, March 3, 2006; "Romney’s Stem-Cell Views May Upset the Right," The Boston Globe, February 11, 2007; "Romney Joined NRA in August," The Boston Globe, February 19, 2007; "Guns, Trust, and Romney," The Boston Globe, April 8, 2007; "Romney’s Gay Rights Stance Draws Ire," The New York Times, December 8, 2006; "Mitt Romney and the LDS Church," The Salt Lake Tribune, February 9, 2007; "Romney Links Gay Marriage, U.S. Prestige," The Boston Globe, February 26, 2005.
