IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN...
posted by M. Martin at 8:11 PM
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
STRIDER welcomes all views & opinions...but will relentlessly bash anyone whose views and opinions are wrong.
The Wisdom of Mark Twain
THINK ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS NOW BECAUSE SOON SOMEONE WILL BE DOING YOUR THINKING FOR YOU.
34 Comments:
McCain-Kerry I'd vote for.
Kerry McCain would pretty much have to be running against GWB.
I'd stand on my feet.
hopefully with a pair of those red shoes.. :)
I like McCain.
I can't see how he can get behind Bush at all on anything after getting smeared by Rove in 2000.
I'd stand to the left...
It'd all depend on the field of candidates, I suppose. But on face value, its a good ticket--especially against GWB, like Doug said. Unfortunately, we're not up against him in 08...unless Bob Woodward is right and Dick Cheney is going to come out and surprise us all by running. Then again, I think it'd be more likely for us to find out that Bob Woodward is just getting senile before Cheney decides to run.
Chris, did Woodward really say that? He'll have lots of company in the Cardiac Care Unit, I suppose.
Mike - I could support McCain if he had the right platform (these red shoes are very particular about what they'll stand on!)
You've all heard me rant on and on about the division in our nation, and I think McCain is not only just moderate enough but also intelligent enough to take the steps necessary towards reuniting our nation. I also agree with Doug and Araider that Kerry is better suited for VP. But as Mike pointed out, whoever the GOP canidate is, they would be wise to distance themselves from GWB.
Shea - clever and fairly predictable. Does that make me clever too?
CW - no way Chenney will run. He's got too many skeletons falling out the closet.
Nedhead - I like your thinking! Oh and that was a great comment too. I'd vote Pitt-Alba for the disclosure, er um, because they're the democratic ticket.
Yeah, I don't think Cheney will run either. But twice in the last 6 months, Bob Woodward has said that Dick Cheney is a "possible darkhorse candidate" for 2008. The first time was on Chris Matthews' Sunday panel show. The second time was earlier this week in Colorado at a speech or something. Like I said, senility is finally kicking in...soon he'll look and act like Mark Felt too.
Woodward just wanted some press. No chance in hell of Cheney running or McCain teaming up with a liberal. Party loyalty is one of the few admirable traits McCain has left, frankly.
McCain/Snowe, McCain/Chafee, etc. are a few very scary possibilities though. I could see it.
By the way, not to derail the subject of this thread, but could any of you obviously very intelligent people tell me what the difference between a "progressive" and a "democrat" is? (I think I'm the only one who doesn't know!) :)
I'd vote for McCain/Kerry but only if McCain was in the top spot. Kerry, in my opinion, is little more than a cipher. At least McCain seems to stand for something.
TLM - I'm not at all qualified to answer and I'm hoping that the others will play clean up, but to me Progressive is a way to refer democrats/liberals in a more positive way since the GOP has strived to give the term Liberal a negative connotation. Plus it also implies we're looking to progress forward instead of giving in to the quagmire of problems imposed by this administration.
CW - Cheney's dark alright, though I'm not sure about the horse part.
Chris - I agree. I'd actually prefer a McCaine-Obama ticket, since as CW previously put it, Obama's a little too green to lead in '08. At least it's not that he's a little to black. Boy, that ticket would run the visual gammet!
Araider - Kerry/H. Clinton, why that's completely for the dogs (female).
nedhead- I'll clarify. Yes, I'm actually looking for a dictionary-type definition. Not something like... "Progressives are for clean air, and responsible government, and happiness, and puppies and kittens!..."
Something more concrete, like "Democrats are [blank], but Progressives are not." And vice-versa.
And, I should mention, there have been at least 3 "Progressive" political parties in American history, tho I don't think any of them are relevant here. (I think they were all conservative-based parties.)
I'd be down for a McCain/Hillary ticket. I don't mind voting for a Republican if he's an inclusive Republican like McCain. I don't care for the Republicans that seem to think compassion should only be given to the few.
And I can't support any ticket that has Kerry on it. He lost to GWB in an election where even Terry Schiavo would have been guaranteed 40% of the vote just because the people were so polarized against W. That's a real loser right there. He only had to win over like 2000 people, and he couldn't do that. Loser.
Gimme McCain. Gimme Obama. Gimme Hillary. Give me someone with some brain and enough charm to sell it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry folks, my previous comment was simply too typo-ridden. Take two...
Hillary Clinton in '08, hmmm. Is she smart? Hell yeah. Is she effective in getting things done? History would indicate so. Is she presidential material? Not in my opinion. First off, the right will never back her (just ask Araider and TLM!). Secondly, we've come a long way as a country, but there are still small-minded idiots who don't believe women should hold opinions of their own, let alone positions of power. She is simply too outspoken and powerful for their taste.
And again with Kerry, I totally agree with Maine. If you can't beat GWB (especially following the debates which showcased Dubya's incoherent babble), you're branded a loser for life.
tlm, you've actually hit a really interesting point. The historical progressive movements have come from both the traditional left (ailinsky, Rauschenbusch, etc) and conservative parties (T. Roosevelt, notably) but all involved the expansion of government to correct social programs (poverty in the leftist cases and monopolism in Roosevelt's case) so all were liberal in the modern context. It's why I say there are no conservatives anymore: The Democrats continue to pursue government intervention in the labor market and trade while Republicans are pushing government intervention in sexual morality and commerce. I think contemporary American politics are divided between trade/labor progressives and commerce/sex progressives which is why I'm a pissed-off unrepresented conservative.
I wouldn't trust McCain or Kerry if they were selling used cars so I sure wouldn't vote for them to hold any political office. You'll find some of my reasons for feeling this way at http://www.usvetdsp.com/ .
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
doug- In some ways, I think you're absolutely right. That's why I rarely refer to myself as a Conservative, but rather a Republican. I might risk another 'fuck-off' here, but adhering to a strict conservative philosophy is profoundly un-American. This isn't Afghanistan... America didn't become the greatest country in the world by not changing.
sar- Is Democrat now really a bad word? I know we ("R"s) successfully demonized the word "liberal" to the point where only the bravest of wacko lefties will admit to being one.
I'll disagree with you on Hillary not being Presidential. She very much is, in my opinion. She's outspoken, very effective, and very flawed. All important qualifications. And with the exception of some loony Religious Righties who think you ladies should be several steps behind us at all times, I don't think most of us give a damn about the gender of our presidents.
nedhead- Thanks for the education. I'd suspected "progressive" referred to some forward thinking faction of the Dem party. As an outsider, I'd guess Howard Dean is included in that movement, but I'm not sure where Bill, Hillary, Kerry, etc. fit in. (To use a phony term, Bill Clinton was a self-proclamed "New Democrat"... But he's from an old administration. Very confusing. I can see why there's an internal power struggle.)
And with nearly everyone in this room being of the Progressive mindset, I expect no worshipping of washed-up old school Dems like Ted Kennedy. :)
I really like Doug's most recent answer on what a progressive is, at least historically. For a more modern take, Wikipedia's definition here is pretty good:
"Progressivism refers to two political phenomena:
Populist Political Progressivism
Historically, this represents distrust of concentrations of power in the hands of politicians and corporations, as represented by the candidacies of Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull-Moose Republicans, and in the early nineties by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and the Reform Party. In modern terminology this is generally called Populism.
Ideological or Modern Left Progressivism
This is a cluster of political and media organizations including The Progressive magazine, the American Prospect, and many democratric socialists."
Hopefully that'll clear things up.
No I wouldn't be " down with it"; I'd be standing on the toes of whoever made that stupid decision.
Wow, lotsa comments! I'm just arriving, so I am responding only to the original post.
I am originally from AZ, and I have learned that McCain can't be trusted - he will sell out for the republican party when it is in his interests, and he puts those ahead of his constituents.
I supported Kerry in 2004 and he betrayed us all. A skull-n-bones-man along with the Bushes.
I want Barbara Boxer for president. Or, perhaps Al Gore, who was justly elected in 2000, could assume the office that was stolen from him!
TLM, you won't get an FU from me but it does sound like you and I come from the opposite sides of the same side of the aisle. I obviously disagree with the latter part of your comment, but I would like it noted that a proud Republican declared conservatism to be un-American. Steno, would you read that back? Yes, once more, please. Thank you. As I suspected.
Wow, Sar and Strider, this is one happening joint.
TLM - I never thought Democrat was a bad word, nor do I think Liberal is. In terms of party labels, I do find it ironic that we live in a democratic society that promotes democracy, yet we shun republics. ;)
Okay David & Alice, fair enough. But who would you like to see run?
Thanks as always for the enlightenment, CW.
It sure is, Doug thanks to everyone's input even TLM & Araider. ;)
cw- Ah, thanks. That's a good definition as well.
doug- Now, now... Don't put words in my mouth. I meant unrestrained conservatism. (Same goes for unrestrained liberalism... Just imagine the tax burden we'd all have if you libs had a blank check!)
I swear to God... I love these comments sections. It's the only place on the web where you can hear opposing political points spoken logically and facutally. There's no anger and name-calling. Just philosophy and discussion. This is wonderful. Now, if only we could be governed by people so sensible.
TLM - I love seeing you commenters "tawk amongst yaselves"!
I swear to God...that was an awesome compliment, Maine, and one I'd have to agree with (see previous note to TLM). And while I share your delusion, er, wish for sensible governing, sadly I'm not sure there is such a thing as a sensible politician.
Putting two Nam vets in charge of the government might be too much "grizzle" --I mean, come on...there's only room in the White House for one violent flashback at a time. Before you know it, the Dept. Of Treasury would come out wearing a necklace full of ears.
)+(
For what it's worth, Kerry will never take the second position IMO.
McCain chucked his spine as far I'm concerned when he came out an stumped for W after Rove engineered that false character smear against him. It told me he doesn't have the inner fortitude for the job.
I'd like to see John Conyers make a run for it. If he got the nod, I'd like to see him run with Bill Nelson. Nelson did a fine job in Florida as insurance commisioner after Hurricane Andrew, and he could pull the south Florida vote out from under Jeb.
I like Hillary fine, but she is so polarizing; this nation needs to pull itself back together before we self destruct.
jet- Bill Nelson will have a tough enough time keeping his Senate seat. He'd have practically no chance of carrying Florida in a Presidential race (especially against Jeb.)
Araider - riiiiiight.
Gabe - might have served us well if the current Prez was capable of having such a flashback rather than simply his drunken escapades.
Jet - this nation needs to pull itself back together before we self destruct - I agree completely.
TLM - I forgot you're from them there parts. Thanks for your insite.
Sar and Chris, this one's for you:
http://michaelav.blogspot.com/2005/08/if-i-was-roberts-im-not-that-sure-i.html
Mike - I actually saw it & left a comment earlier, but for some reason it didn't register in comment count (ie 0 comments). It's there now. :)
Kerry needs to move on
Post a Comment
<< Home