|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 19, 2007 15:14:01 GMT -5
I'd like to ask people who support Romney to take a look at Mike Huckabee. I'm trying to find more out about him, but basically you have someone pretty religious, but in a real religion (sorry, but if you study Mormonism you'll see it's founded on a steaming load of crap, see South Park for details) and, for a Republican canidate, he cares about the environment, global warming, etc. So far Huckabee and McCain are the only Republicans running who appear to care what happens to the environment- Romney actually put his preference to drill for oil in national wildlife refuges in one of his own ads, among other things.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 19, 2007 18:54:18 GMT -5
Huckabee is an interesting candidate to be sure, but do you think he can win in November, Rince?
I'm not saying one way or the other, but it worries me - I think he is a great candidate, and probably agree with him on more things than any of the other folks out there, but the Right needs a viable candidate for the general election.
I'd rather see Romney than any of the Democratic frontrunners...
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 20, 2007 15:37:19 GMT -5
Well, personally I think elections are pretty silly things when people go around saying "Sure, he's a great candidate, but I'm going to go vote for this other guy who's not as good because I think they can win." Reminds me of the Simpsons with the Kang vs Kodoss election, the aliens told people they'd HAVE to vote for one of them, and someone from the crowd said he'd vote for a 3rd party candidate, to which the aliens replied, "Sure, throw your vote away, HAHAHA!". And Kang won. If people keep voting for crap due to "electibility", then all we deserve is crap. It's that kind of logic that's putting Hillary ahead in a lot of polls, you know, and I know how much of a fan you are, Dmitri Anyway, Huckabee is actually beating Romney in several races, so it's a bit of a moot point- he obviously can get voters out, or he wouldn't be beating a guy with a head start and a larger campaign fund.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 20, 2007 16:37:30 GMT -5
I disagree - just look at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 for examples of candidates that won their primary without a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election.
I am aware of Huckabee's numbers, but remember they are only in Republican primaries. I mean, remember Micheal Dukakus in the 88 campaign? He won handily at the convention but got drubbed in the general election. Same thing for Hubert Humphrey in 68, and McGovern in 72. The party must always keep electibility in mind when choosing a candidate, or else they will always lose big the following Novemeber.
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 20, 2007 17:10:22 GMT -5
I'm just saying- if you choose an inferior candidate because you feel that's the only way to get somebody elected, you're saying that it's more important to be elected than to be good. Particularly for a Christian voting, it would seem to make more sense to choose a good candidate you agree with rather than someone you just think will do well- I don't remember the Bible saying to pick the lesser of two evils and do that, rather it says to not pick any at all. Heck, if you just want to pick someone who'll do well, vote for Hillary. You're already saying it doesn't matter much if you like the candidate or their positions, just if they can get elected, so why not?
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Dec 20, 2007 21:23:45 GMT -5
I don't know what it is about Hillary but she just makes me pissed off. lol
I really can't stand her.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 21, 2007 14:22:07 GMT -5
Rince, I think you missed my point. Let me backup a hair... I happen to like Romney's political stances on most issues. His Mormonism tweaks me a bit, just like a Roman Catholic or avowed athiest running for Prez would tweak me. But I don't think he is a bad candidate - and I think he is far better than HRC. They are polar opposites - well maybe not as much as Romney and Kucinich, but almost. ;D Anyway, the point I am making is "If you can deal with a candidate's politics, maybe not loving all of them, but you consider them superior to the alternative party candidate (such as Obama or HRC or Edwards), than why not support the one that is most likely to win vs. said candidate?" As for the lessor of 2 evils, I'd like to see a citation for what you are saying, ie abstinence over involvement in politics. I can't think of any off the top of my head, maybe I'm missing something. In the end, we have to vote our consciences - and mine tells me to do my best to keep a pro-choice, anti-family, unethical, lying schemer out of the White House. And her husband too!
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 21, 2007 15:36:06 GMT -5
Anyway, I do think that someone who's managing to kick Romney's butt with less money and preparation time is a viable candidate. Plus, anytime someone has been a governor of a state, such as Huckabee, you know that they are (were?) at least electable by the majority of people in one state. I don't see why you wouldn't think he's a better candidate for the GOP than Romney. Romney and Hillary both bug me in the same ways. They're the two people in the race who are the best at being politicians. That doesn't mean I think they're good at governing, but that they are good at finding out what positions people want them to have and then having it. Romney has flip-flopped so many times he's basically a Republican Kerry, minus any kind of war record. Heck, he can't even say that his own health care program was a good idea, at least not enough that he thinks the nation should use it. I like these quotes from Congressman Barney Frank: "The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever." and "He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics." Mind you, I rather like the Romney rep response to that: Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom responded in kind. “We’ve never really paid much attention to what Barney Frank is saying, and we see no reason to start now.” Hehe. www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/daily_briefing/index.php/2007/06/11/
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 21, 2007 17:36:52 GMT -5
Gotta agree with the Romney rep on this one - I mean, the man is a political loon.
As for Huckabee's governorship, it was ARKANSAS. 'Nough said. Not sure that is the same par as Massachusetts.
Also, beware the "governor qualifies for prez" thinking... remember George Wallace.
Who knows - maybe Huckabee is electable in the general contest. But I still have my doubts. But heck - that's what primaries are for, right?
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 21, 2007 17:49:31 GMT -5
Yup, that was pretty much my thinking. Although some candidates, like McCain, would probably do much better in a general election than they're ever going to do in a primary, and vice versa, as you noted. Ah well, we'll see. But I'm really hoping it doesn't end up with Romney, he really does flip-flop a lot and seems to have no principles- just look at his friend Larry Craig. He denounces him, disassociates his campaign from him as much as possible, but simultaneously states that he doesn't think the guy should resign, and in the SAME interview states how he feels Clinton should have resigned. That's a real head-scratcher to me, particularly from a religious candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Dec 21, 2007 22:38:05 GMT -5
OK, from a Democrats standpoint. I don't think Hillary is Electable, hence why I am voting for Barrak Obama. The thing about Obama, is since day 1 he has said what he believes, and has not changed that stance at all. Hard to say that about any candidate in any party.
Personally the best candidate for the Republicans, IMHO, is John McCain. I may not agree with him on the war, but to me he is the best possible Republican.
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Dec 22, 2007 8:54:09 GMT -5
Yes, I quite like McCain as well. And I'm not sure he's wrong about the war- if they're really having any success right now, we might as well get out the right way rather than the wrong way. I didn't think he had much chance, but he seems to be on the upswing lately, so let's hope. I know I'd vote for him in a second if it was McCain vs Hillary. Either of the other two Dems and I'd have to really think about it. I know his religious nature might disturb some (not Dmitri ) , but I do think Huckabee seems like a decent Republican too.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 22, 2007 11:28:00 GMT -5
McCain is not a favorable candidate for me. If they are pro-abortion, I won't support them. No matter what the other issues, I can't get behind that. Made that mistake once...
As for his religious nature, remember - my first car had a Pat Robertson '88 sticker on it. I dug it up and threw it on in 1998... I personally question McCain's religious commitment.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Dec 22, 2007 11:58:58 GMT -5
McCain is not a favorable candidate for me. If they are pro-abortion, I won't support them. No matter what the other issues, I can't get behind that. Made that mistake once... As for his religious nature, remember - my first car had a Pat Robertson '88 sticker on it. I dug it up and threw it on in 1998... I personally question McCain's religious commitment. See, there is where I see the problem. You look at 2 things. Abortion and Religous commitment. Again, How does that make him unqualified for the position of President. As a whole, McCain is the best possible Republican candidate. However because he can be classified as Moderate in some views, you won't vote for him. For the record, I have voted for and will continue to vote for Arlen Spector. I think its funny, how every time he is up for Re-election the Republican party still tries to beat him. But because of his Moderate Views, my Brother (who Dmitri would get along with) absolutely hates him. I have no trouble voting for the opposite party, if the Candidate is worth it. I was a Republican, when Bob Casey Sr. was governor. Yet he was the first Democrat I ever voted for, because I honestly thought he was the best possible candidate. And yes at that time I considered myself Conservative. I think that was the time period, I started looking at the overall aspect and not with just my beliefs.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 22, 2007 18:42:13 GMT -5
See, there is where I see the problem. You look at 2 things. Abortion and Religous commitment. Again, How does that make him unqualified for the position of President. As a whole, McCain is the best possible Republican candidate. However because he can be classified as Moderate in some views, you won't vote for him. - Dragonsrule
Yep, ya got me. I can't throw my weight and that of those who follow me on these matters (yes there are a few) behind someone who supports legalized murder. Sorry, you caught me.
I wouldn't support a pro-abortion candidate for prez anymore than I would support Charlie Manson. I find nothing moderate in the pro-abortion stand. Either you support the protection of the rights of a baby or you don't. This one is black and white.
I also don't think McCain is the best candidate for the Republicans. The Republicans do best when they play to their strengths - and one of the biggest of those strengths is the Religious Right.
As for party switching, we all need to remember that is a relatively new phenomanon. I certainly would have voted for Casey Sr. were I not about 10 during his years. But again, he was a pro-life Democrat, along the old lines of a JFK or LBJ. The Dems prior to their getting hijacked by special interest groups of all radical ilks.
As for religion, yes, it matters, because it informs all of my beliefs. Just like an athiests beliefs inform theirs. Everyone has issues they vote - some it's taxes, some the right to life, some crime, some religion. It is completely valid, and totally Constitutional.
To those who seek to keep religion out of government, I cite the classic warning of John Adams: "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams (1735 - 1826), 11 Oct 1798, Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, 1854, 9:229
|
|