Dexter Daily Statesman

2008 woes...already!

Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 3:56 PM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>

Man. It just doesn't seem like we ever get a break from this stuff.

Here we are, still a year and a half out from the next Presidential election and I'm already sick of listening to politicians speak bull-babble that comes out of their mouths.

Since Hillary and Obama decided they needed at least 14 months to make a statement before primaries roll around then it doesn't look like we have a choice.

The interesting thing is that I have no good educated guess as to where this is going to go.

As far as the Democrats go, I think we're obviously looking at either Obama or Hillary. Hopefully not Hillary, there's just something about that woman I don't trust. Much like her husband, I think she's a good politician. Good politician=bad for the people.

Obama seems to be a likable enough guy and seems more sincere than some, but I don't know if he's well-known enough on a long-term level to do the job.

The Republicans have a very out of the ordinary bunch this round. Rudi Guiliani, likable guy but brings along some minor scandalous baggage. His forward stance during the 9-11 attacks I feel give him an interesting edge.

Mitt Romney? If this is the best the GOP has to offer then it's time to pack it up. Small-town America Republican supporters will never elect a Mormon President. The belief that all Mormon's are polygamists is still pretty strong.

Fred Thompson? Not technically in the race, but that could soon change. He does have star appeal and political experience, but first we have to see if he enters the game.

Polls are showing some mixed results, but several candidates haven't been brought into account yet.

What do you guys think? Is America ready to accept a black man, a white woman or a Mormon President? Your guess is as good as mine.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

What about McCain?

-- Posted by goat lady on Tue, Jul 17, 2007, at 6:24 PM

Corey Noles' response:

That's a good point. I actually left out several because I felt like the biggies were the most likely to be talked about and it looks like McCain may be having some difficulties in his campaign.

Yeah, he hasn't raised much money.

It should be an interesting (though long) campaign.

-- Posted by goat lady on Tue, Jul 17, 2007, at 9:16 PM

Don't know why I would even look at the things you mention. We can handle that, not even a question.

Could I say that I don't like the three you mentioned in particular without being considered a sexist, racist or anti-religious? Am I going to feel pressure to approve of one of them? Probably going to feel a little nervous about publicly showing disaproval of either one.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jul 17, 2007, at 9:57 PM

Corey Noles' response:

I don't feel like a dislike for any of the above would show that and I apologize if I gave that impression, but there are many people who do. To be frank, I don't care for any of them this go around. And if they were all white-protestant men that wouldn't change a thing.

The fact is, when whichever bombs out of the race, those are the reasons we'll be hearing.

I'll be honest, right now I like Fred Thompson, and that's partially because he hasn't started talking. Maybe it's because acting abilities hide the politician inside, but it's just a gut feeling. McCain or Romney neither have the pull when it comes to a Presidential race.

My number one concern is what will it take to ensure that Hillary is not our next President. It has nothing to do with her being a woman at all, simply a general dislike for her. The idea that suddenly she has decided she's a moderate is insane. If Hillary gets the Democrat ticket, it will take either Guiliani or Thompson to beat her and that's not going to be easy.

I certainly see Obama as a better alternative to Hillary.

If you want to see what your candidate truly represents, see who they were 5-10 years earlier. Don't base your opinion on what you hear during the election, because that's not the person you get, that's the person they believe they need to be to pull the most votes.

Thanks for joining in.

I agree with Truth. You can't attack any of the democrats without being chastise.

If a democrat wins it'll be a first in history. First woman, or first black president.

Both have already been portrayed in movies, could 08' be a case of life following art?

-- Posted by Obadieh on Tue, Jul 17, 2007, at 11:32 PM

Pretty savy stuff there Corey. I don't think you feel that way, but I do have an uneasy feeling about disagreeing with any of the three.

Sad pickins all around. How about drafting Lieberman without Gore?

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jul 17, 2007, at 11:57 PM

Corey Noles' response:

I think Lieberman is a true moderate. I like a man who votes his conscience and not his party line. Frankly, I think if Gore had half the charisma he seems to have found since 2000 he would have probably won the election. Now he's adopted a stance on SOMETHING! But, that's probably not his fault since I think politicians are urged not to take a truly visible stance during an election. Beat around the bush, that's the game.

I'm not sure that the fact that the Democratic Party has two minority front runners indicates anything other than they just don't really have anyone else who could win an election. If I were a political strategist I would feel much safer running a white governor than hoping on life following art. Somehow I highly doubt that any of the Conservative media attack machines (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et al) would be the least bit worried about being chastised for attacking a minority candidate, so I doubt that is the strategy behind their campaigns either.

As far as the Republicans go...who knows? Guiliani just might be more liberal than most Democrats, plus he's bad with money. In fact, if the G.O.P. continues with their morality campaign, I think Guiliani would not fly at all. I think it will be interesting to see what happens with him. You know, on September 10th, 2001, New York City was ready to run him out of town. Everything changed after 9/11 though. Still, I'm not sure if one day can carry a man to the White House. Anyway, I could go on and on about him...I think he'd be defending himself too much during a campaign.

Romney...I doubt it too. Didn't the Republican Party just base a whole campaign against electing someone from liberal Massachusetts in '04? A quick glance at Romney's past shows how he has had success in the state if you ask me. He might be considered...a....flip-flopper!!!

Fred Thompson...I hope not. Sketchy PACs history, former lobbyist, and defended Lewis Libby.

-- Posted by jabelson on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 4:34 AM

I'm fed up with the whole two party system. I guess I have been for a long time. My preference would be the third party I'm a member of but it doesn't have a prayer and won't be on the ballot anyway. I like Congressman Ron Paul. The media doesn't give him much coverage unless you listen to Patriot Radio on shortwave, but he has a lot of good ideas. He does have a 2008 website- ronpaul2008.com

-- Posted by swift on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 2:45 PM

I agree with you there. It is really a shame that our candidates have to maintain a party agenda in order to get elected.

-- Posted by jabelson on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 3:10 PM

From what I hear, the majority of voters aren't that partisan anyway. Ron Paul seems to be a real populist. He's pro-life while also being against big government and all that goes with it.

-- Posted by swift on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 3:36 PM

OK, its agreed. We start a draft Lieberman campaign. Both parties would eat him alive wouldn't they. It could be more interesting than what I am hearing now. My opinion only, it is depressing thinking that this is the best we can do.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 9:51 PM

Corey Noles' response:

I agree. They would eat him alive, simply because they know he won't bow down. I don't think the day will come in this country when we have another President who isn't more than a flapping head for the party doctrine. I want to see someone I honestly feel is genuine and votes their conscience because that's what we actually vote for in an election: someone who we believe would do what we would do.

I'd even like to see a third party candidate step up and at least get the opportunity to debate these people. I think that's a major part of why they are left out of the debates. When you are reasonably sure you won't win anyhow, you're there to make a statement.

I'm going to vote for one of them though. If you don't how can you complain about what you get?

You know, I have met several politicians and I kind of liked the majority of them as individuals. Just don't seem like the same people in office though. What happens to them?

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Wed, Jul 18, 2007, at 11:35 PM

Corey Noles' response:

So have I. It just changes them over time. It's a shame though because politics has ruined a lot of good people over the years. When there's money flying around and they realize their power I guess it just goes to their head.

Ron Paul's still the one whom I think can really galvanize the electorate. He's got supporters from the independent Patriot Movement as well as folks from the two major socialistic parties.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 11:57 AM

Personally I am tired of both the Dem's and Rep's. No matter who the candidate is, no matter what their intentions are while they are running, once they are elected the political machine that is washington d.c. will pervert their ideology. The president is no longer the leader of our country, which ever political party hold the senate and congress thats the leader. The president is just the yes man for their party. Partisan politics rule the government.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 12:06 PM

Oh yeah, McCain aint ever gonna happen. The man does not have the charisma to carry voters. The presidental election is more of a dog and pony show now.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 12:07 PM

You are right Michael. The two major parties have had a monopoly on elections for some time now. There are good people in both parties, but once they get elected the partisan machine begins the control game. Both parties are run by big money interests. The Republican Party is run by neo-conservatives who believe in globalism. The Democratic Party is run by democratic-socialists who believe in social welfare. Both are forms of socialism and both want power. Leaders of both parties lie to get elected and lie to stay in office. The majority of Americans, according to most recent polls have an unfavorable view of both Congress and our president.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 1:21 PM

Wow, I.B. LeTruth and Jabelson -- Have you seen what's going on here on this blog? They may just be cookin' this weekend!

-- Posted by goat lady on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 11:20 PM

Corey, I just reread your original comment on this blog --- "bull babble"! Cool phrase! Is it original?

-- Posted by goat lady on Fri, Jul 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM

Corey Noles' response:

I think it is, but it's really hard to say. Sometimes I'm not sure if I've made those things up or if I've heard them and just don't remember where.

But, it is fun to say....bull babble.

bull babble.....bull babble.....bull babble!!

I love the sound! I plan to add this phrase to my everyday vocabulary at once! I think it will prove very useful....

-- Posted by goat lady on Sat, Jul 21, 2007, at 8:39 AM