1. Gore 2. While he's better than the alternative, I'm not excited at all (unless he picks Bradley as his running mate) 3. I'm with Achebe on this one, I'm too pragmatic to think that Nader will win, even though I may vote for him anyway (my vote doesn't count) 4. Silver ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
JayZ: In my comment on Bush's drug past, I was trying to allude to a larger issue. Candidacies are snapshot commercials to the masses. Who do you want to be affiliated with? Coke has a nicer can than Pepsi, etc. etc. Researching the candidates I would think that social conservatives would find Gore to be the more attractive candidate. Bush rode his father's clout into the governorship of Texas and on further revue he should be considered a fraud by many of his followers. Obviously if Gore was a partying fiend, Bush's followers would have immersed hundreds of millions of dollars into accentuating the fact. Hypocrisy? It seems as if the Republicans have embraced exactly that which they've been trying to defeat for the past 8 years... a young, attractive man with a checkered past. Luckily Bush neither has the intelligence nor charisma to escape his faults. In the end, I think that Republicans will become bored with their candidate. The Republican caucus has alot of voices and it will be difficult for it to collectively back a candidate. When a true leader emerges, these voices quiet down because of sheer excitement. John McCain had that power (at least for me). Colin Powell undeniably has the ability to quiet dissention. All that being said, Al Gore is no Bill Clinton. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 26, 2000).]
Two things I think are pretty funny so far: A) People who write off Bush as "an idiot" but think Gore is somehow praiseworthy. Folks, they're both quibbledicks. People with talent don't go into politics; they make money in the real world. What one task in your life would you trust either Bush or Gore to do for you? If you've answered anything more important than mowing your lawn, I pity you. Bush is getting a bad rap from the media for his perceived lack of intellect, but I have yet to see anything from Gore to prove he's particularly intelligent either. Gore's getting a free ride on the question of intellect. B) Anyone who says they're voting for Bush because they believe in limited government. HA! HA HA HA!! Oh goodness. Bush has figured out how to get elected as a Republican. It's one-half Clinton fatigue-- emphasize your qualities as a father and a moral man-- and one half ClintonLite-- figure out what the focus groups say the American populace wants the government to give them, and then promise it to them. If you want to shrink the government, you'd better vote Libertarian. ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 26, 2000).]
Thanks, BK, I just added a new word to my vocabulary: quibbledick. I looked it up at dictionary.com and it couldn't give me a definition. Can you tell me precisely what that is? ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
Jay: I too am interested in learning more about the "3rd" party options. Here are URLs for their websites (at least the two parties mentioned above): Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/ ------------------
I would note that the Reform Party exists, but Pat Buchannan is not someone who I want to promote as being a potential candidate. That guy scares me. ------------------
I'll never forget when I covered the Buchanan campaign during the 1992 presidential election for the UH Daily Cougar. I went to his campaign headquarters in Houston and they were manning the phones as usual. I got the typical conservative rhetoric from the volunteers. I spotted a little girl, no more than 7 or 8, sitting at a phone bank. I asked her why she wanted Buchanan to be president and she said, "Jesus wants us to vote for Pat Buchanan." It was one of the great quotes of my short career as a journalist. I nearly fell over and, all the while, the other volunteers just laughed and said, "Isn't she cute?" I still cannot believe I heard that. Simply amazing. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I wish he'd use that as his campaign slogan now. Wouldn't it be great if he did up posters with Jesus in the Uncle Sam poster pose with "Jesus Wants You To Vote For Pat Buchannan" underneath? It'd certainly add a good laugh to the campaign. ------------------
I wonder how Pat will influence the campaign. Will he: a) take away labor votes from Gore b) take away the fundamentalist vote from Bush. He's an interesting character. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
I really dont see why we would want anyone who has never tried drugs. Sure, maybe cocaine is a little harsh, but you simultaneously have a man who often acts as the puppet of his father yet had the balls at one time to try coke. Anyway, a large % of our society has either abused alcohol, smoked, done drugs, etc, etc. Certainly, that is not the kind of role model we want for future generations, but if we want someone who actually understands, or ocmes from society, I dont see why we would have to pick someone who has never tried drugs. That being said, I will probably not vote for any president. As dumb as Bush can be sometimes, Gore is much much worse. I am not too too informed on the third parties, but if I was that is probably where I'd vote. Why dont you guys pimpin the 3rd parties provide some links to your best party websites so I can check it out. I do beleive we need a strong third party, but Im not gonna vote for a 3rd party candidate just for that. My favortie color used to be green, but it became orange a couple of years ago. Silver is cool too, but not very practical. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully like my grandfather. Not screaming like the passengers in the back seat!
First -- I love that everyone seems to think Gore is worthless..most of you here who say you would vote for Nader would NEVER vote for Bush..but you might vote for Gore. As a Republican, let me encourage you all to vote for Nader!!! Yeah...Nader rules...go nader..we love nader!! Yeah!! Yeah Second -- I find it laughable that you all keep saying Bush is some not intelligent. Please...before you throw out general stereotypes, cite some instance that you're using to base that opinion on. If you don't agree with his principles/platform that's fine...but try to argue the opposite and avoid the name-calling. This has become the mantra of the Democratic party recently and it's very unbecoming. ------------------
I agree. I dont think we should just go around calling people idiots cause they dont know who the leader of Ufganstitakinawia is. I dont know that either. But I'm comparing his intelligence to mine, thats why I think he is dumb ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully like my grandfather. Not screaming like the passengers in the back seat!
I hate it when people don't give the Clinton presidency credit for where the country is economically yet give Reagan credit for ending the cold war. Reagan also does not get blamed for the fact that he outspent all the other presidents before him combined and left us so much in debt that my upcoming kids, kids, kids, kids are still going to be paying for it. Despite what people think of Clinton, in my opinion, he was a hell of a president. He did alot of women and work while in office. Yet, he gets very little credit for the work. This despite the fact that damn near 75 percent of Americans are happy with his policies and his work in the White House. That is one of, if not THE highest rating for a president since FDR. As for who I am going to vote for? Well, I don't like Bush. I look at him and I just see the country going back to the military, big spending, conservative ways that I hate. To me, he thinks old. The country has changed and we need leaders who appeal to my generation and the one right before me not the 60 and 70 year olds of the world. No offense to the elder people of the earth, but they are not the ones cranking out the cash and making the US what it is right now. And I think we are in great shape since Clinton came on board. Gore...damn he sucks. But I want environmental issues solved so that my kid has a green earth to live on. And that is the only issue I like with Gore. He has an outstanding record when it comes to the environment. Plus, he has the experience already. Bush is bringing back what his father tried to do. Picking Dick Chaney is as dumb as you can get. The man is riding his dads puny legacy to the end. What makes me think that 1988-1992 will work in 2000-2004? Thanks for reading! ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Almu -- I couldn't pass this up. Reagan had a Congress controlled by Democrats. They did the spending...the President simply does not have the power to allocate funds for anything...check the Constitution. They spent outrageous amounts on welfare and other social programs which never worked. The Democrats controlled Congress for roughly 40 years and could never get spending under control. They never once balanced the budget. Reagan did end the Cold War. There's no two ways about it. Military spending killed the Soviet Union because they couldn't keep up. This while the Democratic Congress sympathized with the Communists and criticized Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an evil empire -- even though Stalin and others killed far more in the name of Communism than Hitler ever did in the name of Facism. Clinton's first two years involved a Democratic Congress as well. They passed the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. I'm no economist but I don't remember the last time taxes every stimulated free enterprise and growth. In fact, they tend to do just the opposite. Then in 1996 the people overwhelmingly threw the Democrats out of Congress and elected Republicans. They proceeded to curb spending, reformed welfare, and passed the first balanced budget in many, many years. Interest rates and inflation are Greenspan's business at the Fed. Someone please tell me Clinton's role in our economic growth. I simply don't see it. As for military, no president has used the US military more than Bill Clinton since the Vietnam War. This guy throws cruise missiles around like nobody's business. He has our troops spread out around the globe on all sorts of ridiculous "peacekeeping" missions that we have no business being involved in...that our tax dollars have no business being a part of. He has absolutely no credibility among world leaders(except England because he and Tony Blair are chums) because everyone knows you can't trust a damn word that comes out of his mouth. This administration is so blatantly ineffective it's laughable. There is no real foreign policy in place...it's only reactionary. And he remains only the second president to ever be impeached...the first who was ever held in contempt of court..and likely only the second to ever be disbarred. Think about it...he can lead the nation but he can't practice law in Arkansas because he has no respect for civil procedure and the rights of litigants. His administration has been a constant grab for power. And I'm not sure Al Gore would be much better...recently the federal government approved a sale of federal land at an unreasonably low price to Occidental Chemical..it would merely raise eyebrows on that alone. It certainly does more than that since we've learned that Mr. Gore owns a significant chunck of stock in that corporation...hmmmmmm. Al Gore is a cardboard man who changes with the scenery. Wanna talk voting record? This is a man who voted time and time again to limit the rights of a woman to abortion. Now that it's in vogue to support those rights, he is in favor of them. Of course, when Bill Bradley, a decent and honest man, tried to point this out, Al Gore lied and said that wasn't true. But the record is there! Notably, Al Gore is the son of a politician too. Al grew up in a highrise in Washington, DC and attended all the finest prep schools, just as George W. did. So you can't play that angle. Incidentally...Al's father voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964...so things aren't always as they seem. Picking Dick Cheney was dumb?? Al Gore himself, in 1988, called Dick Cheney a brilliant man, easy to work with and capable of bridging the gap between the two parties. I've heard people criticize his voting record, but liberals and conservatives alike have generally praised this man as a natural leader. He was tagged as the presumptive presidnetial candidate in 1996..but it was given to Dole because at the time Cheney had health concerns. He's since been given a clean bill of health. Credit Bush for having the guts to pick someone who is his political superior. Not many people would be willing to do that. There was a recent article I think you all might be interested in. It's an article by a liberal democrat writing about his disappointment with his party...particulary the corruption. Go to worldnetdaily.com. I can't remember the name of the author but the article has the word "facism" and "my party" in it. Check it out..it's a great read. To whoever quoted my typo...sorry...but I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited July 27, 2000).]
Mad Max you make EXCELLENT points. But my point is that as an economist, I don't see how the Reagan tactics contributed more than 5 percent of what is happening now. The Congress was controlled under the Reagan admin, but Reagan should take all the blame for not able to work with them like Clinton has worked with the Republican controlled Congress. There is no way that giving rich people all the money for 8 years contributed to this economic boom that is happening now. In fact, its the growth of small business with the tax breaks given to expand and contribute to small business growth under Clinton that has made companies like Sun, Microsoft, Dell, etc prosper and help drive the economy. There has been more entreprise growth in Clintons 8 years than in any other era before 1950. Yea, there is a Republican congress, but there is a Democratic president who is flexible and able to work with them. Reagan was too much of a "macho tough" guy who could not admit that he needed help. He was a good president. But look at the debt he left and Bush continued. Its in the trillions. Clinton came in with the main agenda. He wanted to balance the budget that was so much on the negative side that red wasn't a color justified anymore. He came in saying he was going to do it. And not only did he do it, but we have a HUGE surplus. Again, Republican congress working with a Democratic president. Unlike Reagan, Clinton is known as a person that is willing to comprimise to get things done. My other problem is that under Clinton, this country is enjoying the greatest reduction in crime and the best economy in the history of the world and all people talk about is Monica Lewinsky? Thats really not fair. The man use to have 2 gray hairs when he got into office and now he looked like he aged 20 years in just 8. The guy is working 24/7 on a peace accord with two Middle East countries that not even Jesus was able to bring together and all the Republicans say is that he is just a "lame duck" who is looking for any "legacy" to validate his presidency? Thats not fair at all. As for Dick Chaney. He is not a dumb choice because he can't do the job. He is a dumb choice because Bush is obviously doing what his dad did. Why not go with Senator Thompson from Tennessee? He is a much better candidate who is a proven conservative with an outstanding record in Congress. But nooooooooo. Junior wants to be daddy all over again. Mad Max, I do like Reagan as the first president I remember following. But economic wise and crime wise, he stunk. His biggest strength was world politics and military strategy which is exactly what Clinton is weak in. Reagan was good. He should get credit. But lets not deny that under Clinton, this country has the lowest crime in 30 years and the greatest economy ever. Lets give him some credit for that also since its his administration with people he appointed. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
The thing with Senator Thompson is that he's hard for a guy like me to take seriously. TO me, he'll always be the Tower Chief from Die Hard II. Seriously though, I think Thompson would've been a good choice. I wonder who Gore will end up picking for his running mate. ------------------ www.houstonsportsboard.com
disclaimer: i'm a newbie to politics so correct me if i'm off. it seems to me that the office of the president has two facets: to affect the country emotionally and productively.. to inspire and to be effective at maintaining the country's standards of living. sometimes those two things come together, like when the country is prosperous so that the populace identifies and feels proud of the nation. sometimes the two don't meet at all. Reagan inspired and gave America back its confidence after the Vietnam War and Watergate scandal the the Iranian Crisis and the Oil Crisis and etc. But his supply side economics of trickling down big business profits to the regular consumer never worked and we were saddled with debt, i believe. analogously, clinton PRESIDED over the current period of growth, but his administration's scandals have lowered moral and made us the butt of jokes around the globe... and it has lowered the office of the presidency, although he shouldn't get so much flak because he is subjected to the current environment of media and technology while past presidents could afford to keep their skeletons closeted. that said, i believe that the current economic growth has nothing to do with politics. it has to do with innovation and places like stanford and caltech that gives rise to the current internet generation. this new sector (much like the auto sector and the post wwII economy) gave rise to countless jobs and resurrected the financial industry that was reeling from the s&l debacle and bond trading days of the 80s. it also boosted the tech market which boosted the stock market overall which boosted consumer confidence which increased consumer spending which contributed to this positive cycle of growth that we're seeing. for someone like gore to say that he invented the internet.. well.. who's the idiot again? but i hafta give props to clinton and the republican congress for not tampering with a good thing and ride this out.. and for letting greenspan have a some freedom with controlling the interest rates and letting the market grow. crime rates are lowered? well, that's more the aftershocks of the rising economy and the works of local and state authorities. guliani did more to lower the ny crime rate than any federal guidelines. we usually are able to tackle social issues more effectively if our pockets aren't empty. everything given, i will have to vote for bush because it's the people that surrounds the president that really affects the country. and i believe bush usually surrounds himself with capable people. the president is really only figurehead for the office--i mean, his advisors are the ones that grapple with the issues. gore? at least bush smoked it up a little. i would like to know more about independents tho. ------------------ i need a vacation
Around the globe, people are laughing at us because they can't believe that we actually take into account what happens in the presidents private life to judge his presidency. Isn't Kennedy rated as the 4th or 5th greatest president despite screwing most of Hollywood? Yet now, we forgive him and not Clinton? And aren't the same people who pointed fingers at him having affairs themselves? Two big time Republicans were busted for that. But morally, I understand the president is held to a higher standard. In that, Clinton sucks. But we are in a different era where the smallest thing gets publicized. I don't give a crap that Bush used drugs when he was younger. Its how he is NOW that I care about. People private life does not matter to me is the job that they do. If during the debates I hear good things from Bush, I will vote for him. As of right now, I am not. But, I am open minded. And I don't see confidence and moral low in the country at all. If fact, if you look at all the polls, Americans are happier now than ever before and like I said, Clinton has a rating higher than almost any president ever. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
MadMax, sorry I haven't worked on my reasons why I think 'Bush is an idiot' yet, I want to get some sources/links to prove my point (which I think would give alot of the conjecture that you throw out a hint of validity). I will point out a few things really quick though to counter some of your claims. The first Balanced Budget Accord was passed in 1993 and the Republicans took over congress in 1994, not 1996. This has absolutely no basis in fact. At the G8 three days ago several world leaders appraised Bill Clinton as a 'great man' and as a 'great leader'. I'll find a link for this later. First off, pick your poison. Did Reagan crush the Soviet Empire, or did the congressional democrats? You cannot have it both ways. When Ronald Reagan and George Bush entered the White House, all presidents before them had tallied a $200,000,000,000.00 deficit. When Reganomics came to an end in 1992, the deficit had reached ~$4,000,000,000,000.00. It had increased twentyfold, yes, on primarily military spending. With Congressional Reagan style Democrats all over Capitol Hill (these people call themselves Republicans nowadays) and Reagan's enormous popularity (second only to Clinton in my lifetime ) the Democrats did allow themselves to fall into this mix. Again, however, you cannot disavow Reagan's responsibility for the debt and claim victory against the Soviets in the same paragrah, that's silly. Sorry, I took your bait, I'll work on my post when I have more time. ------------------ Clutchcity500.com is where all the action is!
