A One Time Event
Generally, I shy away from two things here: the excessive blogospheric focus on partisan politics and the lazy open thread post. I am making a one-time exception today ( and NO it is not out of sloth -LOL!).
Having no dog in this hunt and a readership that is wider, politically speaking, than most blogs, I’m genuinely curious to know what my readers think of the candidates for president, who they favor (or abominate) and why. Or anything that reasonably relates to this general topic.
Fire at will.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 am
Well, I’m easy: I dislike <i>all</i> the candidates for President, not only from the two major parties but even from the minor ones. I disagree with them either on issues (Ron Paul), values (Huckabee), approach to politics (Obama), or I just plain don’t trust them (all the rest). I’m seriously considering not voting in the Presidential election, which would be the first time that I’ve ever failed to vote under any circumstances.
I’d be in good company. Arthur Schlesinger refused to vote in 1976, explaining that he couldn’t support Carter because the Georgia governor believed in the literal truth of the Bible. In 1980, he voted for John Anderson. If someone as partisan as Schlesinger can refrain from voting, then I guess I can too.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 am
Is it OK to ask that in 2012 we look for candidates beyond the Rodeo Clown School graduate pool from which the present folk appear to have been drawn. Limited experience, narrow range of policy choices (esp. on the Democratic Party list).
This election resembles one of those Psychology senior projects, taste testing unidentified colas — Brands A, B, and C. Each in a distinctive bottle. (of course, all contain the same soda)
Since Zenpundit requires that we make a choice… I choose the jazy and decisive candidate in the new-fangled bottle — the "Brand for Change."
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 am
By the way, both the party and general elections might get nasty. Some excellent public-policy research in the 1970’s (I do not recall the references) showed that as elections became more personal as the policy differences narrowed — as that was the only way in which candidates could differentiate themselves. If we agree on the major policy questions, then you must be Satan and I an Angel of Light.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
I find it moderately entertaining the in the US of A, every election the same characters bemoan the poor quality of candidates, over and over and over. The constant decline of the Republic (queer, our habit of constantly considering things in decline from the idealised past, dates all the way back to antiquity).
Elections are not abstractions, they’re actual human contests with actual non-text book humans. Of course post facto when one rewinds, things are confirmed or not.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Probably McCain, though I’m obviously not going to be voting.
It’s interesting to me that the Republicans and Democrats seem to have the exact opposite problems — the Republicans are without consensus, and the Democrats are without argument (on anything substantive at least).
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Here in Wisconsin we have an open primary (you can choose to vote in either the Dem or Rep primary) that happens after super Tuesday. So my strategy is this – if Hillary and anyone else are still going at it by then, I will probably swing myself and my wife over to vote on the Dem side and vote against her. Then, of course, vote for the Rep in the general election. Too bad the Libertarian party keeps cranking out hacks and loons.
That said, on the Rep side, I favor Guiliani although McCain has looked more appealing as of late.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Zen,
<i>Generally, I shy away from two things here: the excessive blogospheric focus on partisan politics and the lazy open thread post. I am making a one-time exception today ( and NO it is not out of sloth -LOL!).</i>
LOL! <a href="http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/22/open-thread-xii.html">This is war</a>! 😀
<i>Having no dog in this hunt and a readership that is wider, politically speaking, than most blogs, I’m genuinely curious to know what my readers think of the candidates for president, who they favor (or abominate) and why. Or anything that reasonably relates to this general topic.</i>
The most important problem is the mass execution of infants, which is part of the broader phenononon of abortions. For institutional reasons nearly any Republican President will go farther to ending this than any Democratic Prsident. Therefore, I have my party.
Next, I want who I agree with more than I disagree with. Among the Republicans the analysis goes
* Romney. A GOP version of John Kerry. I’m sure he has vaguely conservative principles, I just don’t know what these are.
* Huckabee. His candidacy has been built on demonstrating his non-incompetence, positioning himself for something with the party later on, so not a serious contender.
* Thompson. See Romney.
* McCain / Giuliani. Both are specific and consistent enough in their ideas that I know where I agree and disagree with both. Ultimately, McCain’s history of being right on foreign poicy and greater electability tilt the balance in Mac’s favor.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Zen,
Generally, I shy away from two things here: the excessive blogospheric focus on partisan politics and the lazy open thread post. I am making a one-time exception today ( and NO it is not out of sloth -LOL!).
LOL! This is war! 😀
Having no dog in this hunt and a readership that is wider, politically speaking, than most blogs, I’m genuinely curious to know what my readers think of the candidates for president, who they favor (or abominate) and why. Or anything that reasonably relates to this general topic.
The most important problem is the mass execution of infants, which is part of the broader phenononon of abortions. For institutional reasons nearly any Republican President will go farther to ending this than any Democratic Prsident. Therefore, I have my party.
Next, I want who I agree with more than I disagree with. Among the Republicans the analysis goes
* Romney. A GOP version of John Kerry. I’m sure he has vaguely conservative principles, I just don’t know what these are.
* Huckabee. His candidacy has been built on demonstrating his non-incompetence, positioning himself for something with the party later on, so not a serious contender.
* Thompson. See Romney.
* McCain / Giuliani. Both are specific and consistent enough in their ideas that I know where I agree and disagree with both. Ultimately, McCain’s history of being right on foreign poicy and greater electability tilt the balance in Mac’s favor.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’m inclined to agree with Lounsbury on this: complaining about the quality of the choices for president without doing much about it seems strange. My own solution would be to pay more attention to local politics and stop continually re-electing incumbents. I’d like fewer lawyers and more businessmen.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate and never has been. The only choice one has is the nature of the imperfection. From my point of view all of the top-tier candidates
are far too interventionist, at least in their stated foreign policy preferences. My original preference, Richardson, is out and proved to be a lousy campaigner.
Giuliani’s foreign policy sounds like Bush on PCP; I think McCain is the stronger.
Of the Democrats I prefer Obama, for whom I plan to vote in the primary.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Uh oh – you made Dan mad… :-O
Though a registered Republican, I’m still "undecided" on the GOP slate — good thing I have two more weeks until Super Tuesday (when, in Tennessee, we not only vote for candidates, we also get to vote for the individual delegates too!).
As for Democratic candidates, all three of the front-runners lost me last week during their Las Vegas debate when they each described their energy policies — to me, the top issue after "the economy, stupid" for this election. Their weak platitudes about how they’d never allow a Yucca Mountain, and their vow to not pursue the demonstrably carbon-neutral nuclear power option, struck me as myopic and ineffective.
BTW, blogfriend CKR has posted some pointed critiques of the Clinton–Obama–Edwards nuclear weapons views over at Physics Today.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I think it will be refreshing for the world and America in particular to have a president who speaks fluent English. All the candidates qualify in this regard, although some are better than others.
I’ve been trying to be true to the news part of my blogging and reserve judgement on which candidate(s) I prefer, although it’s hard not to come to some conclusions.
I will vote for the Democrat over the Republican this fall; there is a real difference in quality between the fields. Continuing Bush’s policies is simply not an option.
But which Democrat do I prefer now? I’d like to see a woman become president; I have experienced all those things that keep women from the same success as their equally (or less) gifted brothers. But I do think that rhetoric, goals and even dreams are a part of leadership, and Obama excels there. Edwards appears to be willing to speak truth to power, although sometimes his pugnaciousness is a bit much for me.
Clinton carries a lot of baggage, and she and Edwards are exemplars of some of the historic tendencies, some good and some not so good, of the Democratic Party. Obama makes a good case for change, but his policies aren’t a whole lot different than Clinton’s and Edwards’s.
I’d like to see all the candidates be a whole lot more open and less willing to distort their opponents’ positions to gain a few votes (viz., Clinton at last night’s debate).
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I haven’t decided whether Edwards
1) really wants to be the spoiler (stealing more primary votes from Obama than from Hillary)
2) is secretly helping Hillary squeeze into the nom
3) is secretly fighting Hillary by adding a hyper-critical voice to the primary season, attack-dog style for Obama’s sake, but plans to throw his supporters to Obama
4) is an egomaniac who just wants to win and can’t see the lay of the field in these primary battles.
I’m betting it’s #4 — but in a world shifting toward the fifth generation…..who knows?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
The thought that nuclear weapons might be voted into the hands of someone who reads the Revelation of John the Divine for the light it sheds on news from the Middle East worries me, but not as much as the thought that elsewhere they might fall into the hands of someone who would like to offer them in tribute to the Twelfth Imam, or use them to hasten the Caliphate.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Lounsbury and Dave, I passionately supported candidates for the 2004 and 2000 elections. And I DID try do do something about the lack of candidates this cycle — I was involved in no less than three draft movements, one of which I founded.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
As Dan knows, I initially threw my support behind Sen. Biden, mostly because given the trouble we face abroad I thought we needed a steady and knowledgeable hand at the helm. Unfortunately, I was in the minority on this and he withdrew after Iowa.
Since then, I’ve been mostly leaning toward Obama due to the fact that he represents both the tail end of the baby boomers, and the transition toward the new generation. Plus, I still hold out hope that given his thin foreign policy resume, he will need someone like Biden as his VP, or Sec State. I’m not considering Hillary, mostly because of her association with Sandy Berger, who in my mind did something in the same league as Scooter Libby. As such, I can not support her.
On the Republican side, I’m leaning toward Sen. McCain because out of all the republicans he seems the most reasonable and least ideological, not to mention most independent
among them. While I disagree with him on the surge and the Iraq war, at least he seems to understand that Gitmo and the perception of the US as a nation that tortures damages far more than the advantages we gain from them.
I think out of all of the candidates, there are two I could never support. These are former Sen. John Edwards, and former Gov. Mitt Romney. As Curtis notes, Edwards seems like just an egomaniac who feels entitled to the presidency and is willing to pander as far as possible to achieve his aims. Romney is of the same stripe, and doesn’t think twice about changing positions when it suits his political fortunes. These two seem to feel, more than any other of the candidates, that they can say one thing one year, something different the next, and then count on the ignorance of the American public to buy their new personae and rhetoric. In my view, the worst sort of politician and too reminiscent of Bill Clinton for my tastes.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Totally naive opinion: I’m leaning toward Obama because I want a change. I confess I am influenced by the good doctor.
I’ll tell you what does not appeal to me (well, one thing): the Repub contest to claim Reagan’s mantle. I mean, if I wanted that, I would have voted for Bush/Zombie Reagan.
I’m with CKR and CGW on Edwards. He just doesn’t pass the smell test.
McCain is just too crabby and combative for me (and perhaps too old).
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 am
I really don’t like any of the candidates. As a Not-A-Democrat, all three of the leading Democrats are incredibly cringe-worthy. If I had to pick one of them, Hillary would be my very reluctant choice.
On the Republican side, there’s not anybody I actually want to be President, and several I very much don’t want to be President: the top two on that list are currently Huckabee and Paul, with McCain running a strong third and Romney a weak fourth. I guess that makes me a Giuliani supporter by default. I also slightly liked Thompson, but with his withdrawal, there aren’t any other options.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 am
Excellent discussion ladies and gents.
Regarding Reagan, I loved Reagan but he was a man for that time and place. What the GOP wannabes should realize is that if Reagan were alive and contesting for the presidency today, while his philosophy and themes might still be recognizable, his policy program would be looking ahead to the challenges of the 21st century and not issues from 28 years in the past.
The Democrats have a similar problem to a worse degree, having never recovered from Kennedy’s personality or Harry Truman’s Fair Deal domestic program ( which was a legislative and economic disaster). The Dem’s are now trying to package a Black man from Hawaii as "JFK" and in a rapidly globalizing, decentralizing, interconnecting world, are still arguing for Truman’s national health insurance as if this was the mass-production, factory worker, America of 1948.
Of Hillary, her temperment would make her an ineffective chief executive even if she was a conservative, Republican, male. Uncomfortable parallels here with Nixon’s darker qualities and George W. ‘s messianic certitude. The next president needs to be someone who can hear alternative opinions without bile rising in their throat.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
"The next president needs to be someone who can hear alternative opinions without bile rising in their throat". Amazing that after all this excellent commentary you would capture the biggest issue at hand here with your last sentence.That has been our problem the last 8 years. We’ve had the most stubbornly, tone-deaf leadership…. (could never imagine Obama or Huckabee acting this way).Yet the other half of the problem is the one properly associated with Bill Clinton, that of the promiscuous and chaotic policy dictated by broad but shallow poll results. I.e. America/humanity’s short attention span. (definitely could see Hillary or Romney acting this way)None of the candidates seem to address both weaknesses well enough.McCain has a nasty temper that worries me sometimes because it borders on the edge of self-righteousness all too often, while Obama is so vague at times one wonders if he would pull a Clinton and follow the polls too often.No one else comes close though when one considers the kind of president we need right now; a unifier. I don’t mean one who can make the whole country sing Kumbaya and hold hands but one who can govern pragmatically from the middle effectively with beliefs and guidance inspired by their ideological leanings (should they have any, which I truly believe McCain & Obama lack).Imagine if we’d had McCain on 9/11. How much different would this country be if we’d had a president who united most of us instead of ignoring us?We need new ideas, but first and foremost, we need to move beyond the narrow party base candidates seem to be beholden to because of the primary system. The hypocrisy of much of the Republican base especially in their treatment of McCain is galling… this from the party base who sold out their principles for sheer power on fiscal responsibility, national security, free trade (CAFTA is a farce especially) and social policy.Reagan is dead. So is JFK. Unfortunately Bill Clinton isn’t. And unless Republicans wake up and realize the opportunity McCain represents to take the independents and much of the black vote that won’t be voting for Hillary in November, they’ll be nominating a say anything chameleon like Romney or a one issue dolt like Rudy and losing their best chance at the White House in decades. 8 years of Billary will be the punishment for this nonsense, and the country will pay the price for it more than the GOP will.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
(Apologies, Safari ignores margains and tabs for some reason… and sorry for missing this yesterday).
"The next president needs to be someone who can hear alternative opinions without bile rising in their throat".
Amazing that after all this excellent commentary you would capture the biggest issue at hand here with your last sentence.
That has been our problem the last 8 years. We’ve had the most stubbornly, tone-deaf leadership…. (could never imagine Obama or Huckabee acting this way).
Yet the other half of the problem is the one properly associated with Bill Clinton, that of the promiscuous and chaotic policy dictated by broad but shallow poll results. I.e. America/humanity’s short attention span. (definitely could see Hillary or Romney acting this way)
None of the candidates seem to address both weaknesses well enough.
McCain has a nasty temper that worries me sometimes because it borders on the edge of self-righteousness all too often, while Obama is so vague at times one wonders if he would pull a Clinton and follow the polls too often.
No one else comes close though when one considers the kind of president we need right now; a unifier. I don’t mean one who can make the whole country sing Kumbaya and hold hands but one who can govern pragmatically from the middle effectively with beliefs and guidance inspired by their ideological leanings (should they have any, which I truly believe McCain & Obama lack).
Imagine if we’d had McCain on 9/11. How much different would this country be if we’d had a president who united most of us instead of ignoring us?
We need new ideas, but first and foremost, we need to move beyond the narrow party base candidates seem to be beholden to because of the primary system. The hypocrisy of much of the Republican base especially in their treatment of McCain is galling… this from the party base who sold out their principles for sheer power on fiscal responsibility, national security, free trade (CAFTA is a farce especially) and social policy.
Reagan is dead. So is JFK. Unfortunately Bill Clinton isn’t. And unless Republicans wake up and realize the opportunity McCain represents to take the independents and much of the black vote that won’t be voting for Hillary in November, they’ll be nominating a say anything chameleon like Romney or a one issue dolt like Rudy and losing their best chance at the White House in decades.
8 years of Billary will be the punishment for this nonsense, and the country will pay the price for it more than the GOP will.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
On the Republican side:
Rudy – I like him. I won’t have a problem voting for him. Is he still running though? I like that he was successful working with a democratic city council. I like him on security, economic, and domestic issues.
Romney – He seems a bit too smooth, polished and orchestrated for my liking –
is he fake? A big plus for him – he was successful working with a democratic legislature. I think he will do well with domestic and economic issues. I think TDAXP calling him the republican John Kerry nails some of my unease with him. I could vote for him.
McCain – He seems to be pretty good on security issues. He isn’t good on domestic / economic issues (better then the dems though). I don’t like his age. I would vote for him if it came down too it.
Huck – Seems like a nice guy. But… I can’t see myself voting for a fundamentalist protestant minister, who seems to be anti-science and not really pro-capitalism. He’s says lots of dumb things on security issues. I can’t see myself voting for him in a primary or general election.
Paul – This guy is a nutcase (on the verge of full on out rantings). What a joke. A Paul nomination is the only thing that could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.
On the Democrat side:
First, they all seem to me to be wrong on security, wrong on economics, and wrong on domestic policy. I can’t see myself voting for a democrat in the general election (unless Ron Paul or maybe Huckabee is the republican nominee).
Edwards – He has morphed into an angry leftists – he sounds like a British socialist to me.
Clinton – Only a Ron Paul nomination could get me to vote for her. I want nothing to do with the Clintons. I don’t trust them, I don’t like them. The only Clinton I would vote for is George.
Obama – His policies and ideas are not to my liking (but better them Edwards or Clinton). A big plus – he is not another boomer. So, I guess he would be my first choice among the dems. After the last debate, I definitely would feel better about him as president them Clinton or Edwards.
Kuchinch – Is he still running? He is a nutcase.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:12 am
"Regarding Reagan, I loved Reagan but he was a man for that time and place."
Yep. This whole "the next Reagan" bit is tedious. There won’t be a "next Reagan" or "next Lincoln" or "next Roosevelt (either one)" and so on.
I like McCain. As far as being old, he’s some months older than Reagan was when he was elected so that’s not much of an issue for me beyond who he’ll consider for VP.
Hey, zen, you’ve got no dog in this hunt, does this mean you won’t be casting a ballot? Who’s your poison for ’08?