NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[Rabs]

NOOOOO!!! at the Iowa primaries.

Huckabee? Just what America needs another Christian zealot making sure to try his hardest to piss off the world with his complete lack of foreign policy experience.

Average Huckabee supporter-
"He may not know the difference between Iraq and Iran, but by god he wont let them' homosexuals get married and he puts enough crosses in his commercials to get my vote!"

Sigh one can only hope some one reasonable like paul or mccain gets nominated in New Hampshire.

Just GRRRR

 

[DTop]

Take it easy Rabs. It's only a caucus and nobody's nominated for anything yet. I mean Obama? His greatest asset is that he's running against Hillary. I really just think it was a matter of the "change a holics" turning out in the greatest numbers to vote for the most unusual character.
As far as Huckabee is concerned, it wasn't a real surprise considering that

six in 10 GOP voters said they were born again or evangelical Christians, and by far the largest share _almost half _supported Huckabee. Romney led among non-evangelical voters, getting a third of their support. More than a third of Republicans said having the same religious beliefs as their candidate was very important, and of that group just over half favored Huckabee.

As for the Dems:

WHAT THEY WANTED
About half of Democrats said they most wanted their candidate to bring about needed change, and Barack Obama won the support of 51 percent of this group. Hillary Rodham Clinton dominated among those citing experience, but they represented only one-fifth of voters. Another fifth said they most wanted a candidate who cared about people like them, and they liked John Edwards. Only about one in 10 said they most wanted a contender with the best chance of capturing the White House, and they opted for Edwards — who finished second.
Among Republicans, more than four in 10 said finding a candidate who shared their values mattered most, and the lion's share of them — 44 percent — found Mike Huckabee. Another third wanted a candidate who says what he believes, and they also favored Huckabee. A smaller group was looking for experience, and they leaned toward Mitt Romney and John McCain. About one in 10 said they wanted a winner in November, and half picked Romney, the second-place finisher.

Who knows, maybe this will be the wake up call that voters need? In any event, I never place much store in the results of the Iowa caucuses. It's all pretty premature.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_po/caucus_poll_glance

 

[mmarsh]

Rabs

Huckabee won because Iowa is a Conservative State with a strong Evangalist background. Bush won there too in 2000, and he too ran on the religious ticket. The fact Huckabee won isn't a surprise. I was more (pleasantly) surprised by Hillary's poor showing, I thought she beat Edwards.

HOWEVER.

New Hampshire is moderate, and Huckabee's born-again/evangelist views are not going to get much traction there. He is already in 4th place. I don't think he will waste his time in the North East, he knows his Evangelist views are unpopular there.

I saw some interesting figures. 1250000 Democrats showed up for the Iowa Caucasus but only 1080000 Republicans, this means the anti-Washington feeling is strong and of course that helps the Democrats. Even if Huckabee wins the nomination he is going to get crushed in the General Election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04cnd-elect.html?hp

 

[DTop]

That is just your opinion mmarsh. I love how you can predict the way American voters will vote. I wouldn't be so confident about the final outcome this early on if I were you.
But as long as we're teetering out on the shaky limb of political predictions, I could be way off here but, I'd venture to say that if Obama does win the Democratic Party nomination and that's a big if, I don't think the party has a realistic shot at the White House. Then again, politics is a fickle beast and I've been wrong before.

 

[The Other Guy]

Edwards beat Clinton... a step in the right direction.

 

[Del Boy]

America has a great election process - the candidates go through mill, get ground and sieved. In America, most of our ministers wouldn't qualify as door-men.

However, I have to say that in general there is one electioneering word to steer well away from, and that is 'CHANGE'! Highly dangerous to put your future there. Change from what? Change what? Things that are broken or not? Things THEY consider broken ? Do THEY know better than you? I believe history shows otherwise. THEY don't have magic wands, however much they would pull the wool over your eyes. How often is change for the better? How about all those cherished things that stand because they are the result of a great many years of evolution and experience. Be very wary of those who want to change you - it usually carries a high price. Look at our sad situation here - all in the name of change, at the whim of career politicians building ivory castles where they can live untouched by change.

Do you want a different USA, or the same great USA striving to do its best to improve , without losing track of what it stands for.

Just a consideration from an ancient outsider.

 

[A Can of Man]

It's true.
Just because the press tells you everything is out of order, it doesn't mean they actually are.

 

[WNxRogue]

Iowa chose, those were the choices. Done deal.

For myself, im glad Obama proved he is a real contender in this comining process. The Huckabee was not really suprising, no comments there.

 

[!LH@N]

I highly doubt that the GOP has any real chance of winning the general election in the post-Bush era. For me it's just a question of Clinton or Obama.

Regards,
Il

PS: Parts of the electoral system are really screwed though

 

[DTop]

What a defeatist attitude. Bush is not running and I'm no real fan of he GOP but to my way of thinking, they are the lesser of two evils by a long shot especially in this day and age.

 

[!LH@N]

The GOP? Are you kiddin me?
Big business and religious right? That's the worst that can happen to the USoA! Outsource everything...lower taxes...no regulations for nothing (except it concerns big business...).
Ok, the Democrats are big business too, but not as hardcore as the GOP is.
I love the GOP until about after World War One (I hate President Wilson so bad, I can't imagine how he got there, a shame for the Democrats!)

Regards,
Il

 

[DTop]

No I'm not kidding you. Did you see a smiley in my post? Big business and religious right are just some of the same old tired terms that get thrown out there every other election or so and they have no real substance. I work for big business so anything that helps my bottom line is OK with me. Religious right? What is the religious left? Morals and standards are vital to a functioning society. BTW, I really don't think you're old enough to remember Woodrow Wilson so how could you "hate" him?
I'm surprised they haven't dusted off the old "military industrial complex" label that they used in the 60s when they first blamed the Democrats and then the Republicans for Vietnam. Labels and catch phrases really shouldn't determine the way one should vote. Look deeper into the issues before you cast a vote.
I swear they should implement a pretest at the voting booth before they allow some folks to vote for candidates and issues they no nothing about. You need at least some rudimentary familiarization with the real issues before you can have a valid opinion.

 

[MontyB]

No I'm not kidding you. Did you see a smiley in my post? Big business and religious right are just some of the same old tired terms that get thrown out there every other election or so and they have no real substance.

You mean like "liberal" and "tax and spend"?

I work for big business so anything that helps my bottom line is OK with me. Religious right? What is the religious left? Morals and standards are vital to a functioning society.

Very true but morals and standards are not solely the property of the religious in fact given the number of campaigners for morals and standards that end up in prison for sex and fraud I would suggest that it is more lip service than faith.

Anyway I am a supporter of McCain in this race so I hope he makes a comeback shortly.

 

[!LH@N]

No I'm not kidding you. Did you see a smiley in my post? Big business and religious right are just some of the same old tired terms that get thrown out there every other election or so and they have no real substance.

Oh yeah that's just gossip right?

I work for big business so anything that helps my bottom line is OK with me.

Well that's fine for you, but it doesn't fit the GOP agenda (Libertarianism, no regulations, etc. pp.). Who do you think forces most regulations into the business world? Big business. Who's fault is this ongoing financial crisis, that makes me get a buck fifty for every Euro that I use? Big business. And who do you think baths it out? The small people! (the Fed is actually supposed to raise the interest rate, but it doesn't because a lot of banks would go broke. And then it's the small business owners, the small homeowners that go broke. The middle class has to pay for what big business messed up. Nice, good job. Now how fair is that?)

Religious right? What is the religious left? Morals and standards are vital to a functioning society.

Social democrats that are religious, that's the left. And conservatives who channel their own agenda through religion are the religious right.
First, don't you want people to decide themselves which morals they need?
Second, do you really think a group which denies one of the very basic rights, the rights of, say, a muslim, to put his hand on his OWN holy book while being sworen into Congress, is good for America?
Ohh...and who's one of the biggest contributers to GOP funds? Guess what...AIPAC...

BTW, I really don't think you're old enough to remember Woodrow Wilson so how could you "hate" him?

I don't think you have to know somebody personally to hate him, do you?
Quotes like the following make me hate him:
-"segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
Or the fact that he resegregated the federal government. Nice guy that Wilson...

I'm surprised they haven't dusted off the old "military industrial complex" label that they used in the 60s when they first blamed the Democrats and then the Republicans for Vietnam. Labels and catch phrases really shouldn't determine the way one should vote. Look deeper into the issues before you cast a vote.

Oh yeah, that statement is so out of place, the GOP is not outsourcing the military at all, and military companies are not spending millions when the GOP fundraises....

I swear they should implement a pretest at the voting booth before they allow some folks to vote for candidates and issues they no nothing about. You need at least some rudimentary familiarization with the real issues before you can have a valid opinion.

Ok, enlighten me, give me some info, please!

Regards,
Il

PS: I'm not totally ignorant about the American political system. I was a year in the US AND I had Advanced Placement US Government and Politics (that's a college level class, I scored a four on the exam, that means I can get college credit for that!). Just stating that here so you don't think I'm a fool with no idea.

 

[DTop]

Actually my comments were not specific to you other than the Wilson comment. You'd have to take his comments in the context of the time they were made. That was a long, long time ago and I'm sure many of his contemporaries agreed with him. Hate is such a strong word. It sounds like you don't like him for a statement that reflected a kind of hatred but you hate him for it. Hmm, I don't think hatred is justified.
I don't care how many months you spent here. What difference would any of that make?
The fact is that we are a capitalist country. We depend on business, we promote business and that's the way its. Trust me, regulations on business are not self inflicted. The government whether Democratically controlled or not is not regulating business for the benefit of business.
As far as outsourcing goes, I don't think you can place the blsme for this solely at the feet of the Republicans. Concerning NAFTA, I quoted the following just FYI:

The agreement was pursued by the conservative governments in the US and Canada. In Canada, the Government was led by Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The Canadian government worked aggressively with Republican President George H. W. Bush to create and sign the agreement. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, and the Clinton administration made passage of the agreement its major legislative initiative in 1993. After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the Senate passed it by 61-38. Some opposition persists to the present day. Recently in Canada, labour unions have removed their objections to the agreement from their platforms.

Effects of NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA has been controversial since it was first proposed. Transnational corporations have tended to support NAFTA in the belief that lower tariffs would increase their profits. Labor unions in Canada and the United States have opposed NAFTA for fear that jobs would move out of the country due to lower wage costs in Mexico. Some politicians, economists, and policy experts have opposed free trade for fear that it will turn countries, such as Canada, into permanent branch plant economies. Farmers in Mexico have opposed NAFTA because the heavy agriculture subsidies for farmers in the United States have put a great deal of downward pressure on Mexican agricultural prices, forcing many out of business. Opposition to NAFTA also comes from environmental, social justice, and other advocacy organizations that believe NAFTA has detrimental non-economic impacts to health, environment, etc. In Mexico the poverty has risen considerably since the signing of NAFTA. Wages have decreased by 20 percent. NAFTA's approval was quickly followed by an uprising amongst indigenous people led by the Zapatistas, and tension between them and the Mexican government remains a major issue. Furthermore, NAFTA was accompanied by dramatic reduction of the influence of trade unions in Mexico's urban areas. NAFTA has been accompanied by a dramatic increase of illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States.

http://www.vancol.com/history-of-nafta.cfm

As far as religions are concerned, I am of the opinion that as long as it's not hurting anyone, your religious beliefs are your business. If the morals and standards embraced in a particular belief system happen to be the same as that of the society I live in then I'm fine with that too. I believe there is a huge difference between a religious conservative and fanatic intolerance.

You mean like "liberal" and "tax and spend"?

Yes Monty, that's exactly what I mean. Does that surprise you for some reason

Very true but morals and standards are not solely the property of the religious in fact given the number of campaigners for morals and standards that end up in prison for sex and fraud I would suggest that it is more lip service than faith.

Anyway I am a supporter of McCain in this race so I hope he makes a comeback shortly.

Shockingly perhaps, I would not be unhappy with John McCain either, at least at this point. Even though he would be older than Ronald Regan was when we (Americans, not me personally) elected him.

 

[Del Boy]

I am a little puzzled at Obama's huge call for change. Has he yet detailed his vision of a changed, better, America? Is it do-able, or a secret, or a magic wand?

 

[DTop]

I for one, don't know of any specific changes he has proposed. It seems he's being purposely non-specific as many politicians do. After a qucik search on the net, I see that I'm not alone.

What would Obama do?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

I haven't followed Sen. Barack Obama close enough to dispute any of the positive attributes that letter-writer Michael Guy claims that the senator has ("Harry S Obama," Nov. 17 and PghTrib.com). However, there is one obvious difference between Sen. Obama and President Harry S Truman:
Obama would rather pull troops out of Iraq and declare defeat, even when the tide has turned in our favor. He wants to pull the plug in Iraq when the casualty numbers are microscopic when compared to the number of soldiers killed in action during World War II against Japan.
When faced with the option, Truman ordered the dropping of an atomic bomb in order to force the Japanese into surrendering.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/letters/send/s_539980.html

 

[pixiedustboo]

GOD forbid Obama or Clinton gets voted in.

Huckabee isn't my first choice, but you can bet your tush I'd pick him a million times over Obama, Edwards or Clinton. They scare me.

 

[WNxRogue]

GOD forbid Obama or Clinton gets voted in.

Huckabee isn't my first choice, but you can bet your tush I'd pick him a million times over Obama, Edwards or Clinton. They scare me.

May I ask why?


Edit - here is the wiki on some of his positions, im assuming that his "changes" will follow those guildlines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

 

[!LH@N]

Actually my comments were not specific to you other than the Wilson comment. You'd have to take his comments in the context of the time they were made. That was a long, long time ago and I'm sure many of his contemporaries agreed with him. Hate is such a strong word. It sounds like you don't like him for a statement that reflected a kind of hatred but you hate him for it. Hmm, I don't think hatred is justified.

See, my problem with Wilson is first that he had this hateful opinion, AND that he resegregated the federal government again. He didn't have to do it. And President Eisenhower wasn't a big man of desegregation, I think, but he did enforce it when he had two.
My second problem with him is that back in the day after WW1, Wilson was talking about all this stuff like "self-determination of all the peoples" and he carved several would-be nations on the territory of Turkey (where I come from), but at home he did that crap.

I don't care how many months you spent here. What difference would any of that make?

Very easy. I do have insight into US politics, quite different than a lot of other people (Europeans AND Americans).

The fact is that we are a capitalist country. We depend on business, we promote business and that's the way its. Trust me, regulations on business are not self inflicted. The government whether Democratically controlled or not is not regulating business for the benefit of business.

Of course the US is a capitalist country. But big business has too much influence on US politics. That's not really capitalist, I doubt it.

As far as outsourcing goes, I don't think you can place the blsme for this solely at the feet of the Republicans. Concerning NAFTA, I quoted the following just FYI:
http://www.vancol.com/history-of-nafta.cfm

Oh yeah I know it's not just the GOP, it's the democrats too. I forgot the Congressman's name, but the one who has the wall street in his congressional district is a big business dude too.

As far as religions are concerned, I am of the opinion that as long as it's not hurting anyone, your religious beliefs are your business. If the morals and standards embraced in a particular belief system happen to be the same as that of the society I live in then I'm fine with that too. I believe there is a huge difference between a religious conservative and fanatic intolerance.

I totally agree with you on that point. The problem with the religious right though is, that they want America to be the "Nation under God" again, imposing their believes on others. And when that happens...protest against the government becomes a sin...because protest against the government means protest against God...and we know where that ends.

Shockingly perhaps, I would not be unhappy with John McCain either, at least at this point. Even though he would be older than Ronald Regan was when we (Americans, not me personally) elected him.

To say the truth, I would be happy with McCain, too. Even though he's very old, and pretty conservative, too, I like him because of some of the stuff he did (for example him trying to revise the fundraising laws, even though it didn't work out well).

Regards,
Il